myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Aranda <>
Subject Re: Proposal: Elimiante jar files from SVN
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:55:49 GMT
Mmh, maybe my position has not been well understood due to my limited
english as I think we are holding a similar opinion. I am AGAINST
having the jars in the SVN. You should download the jars *only* when
you need them (and almost always you already have that jar in your HD
so there isn't the necessity to download it again). I agree in the
point that is extremely important that all dependencies are well
documented (all dependencies and everything regarding the build
process). In the case you don't have the jar already and you must
download the it, you might have many ways: by hand, using the build
script, from the dependent project sites, ibiblio... wherever. This is
why I talked of a *shared* bandwith, as the bandwidth that correspond
to the download (only if needed) of that jars is *shared* among
diferent servers.

I am always talking of the code in the SVN. Of course that release
code might include the dependencies (as long as their license allows

I hope that my thoughts are clearer now,



2005/6/27, Craig McClanahan <>:
> On 6/26/05, Bruno Aranda <> wrote:
> > And, returning to the developer POV, you might want the sources for two things:
> >
> > 1. Take a glance to the code to see how something is implemented.
> > 2. Develop and/or build from sources.
> >
> > IMO, for both cases is easier to download the jars using the script.
> > Probably, for #1 jars are not essential, so the checkout is faster and
> > you can get to the code sooner. If you want to do #2, you will have to
> > execute the build.xml file, so it is acceptable to download the
> > dependencies at this stage. I only see one disadvantage (and many
> > advantages) in this approach: you need to execute the build.xml being
> > online, at least the first time.
> >
> > By the way, bandwith would be divided between the source repository
> > (ASF) and the binary repository (Ibiblio or similar). It is obvious
> > than, as Craig pointed, in the jars-in-SVN approach Apache might have
> > many copies of the same commons-whathever lib (one or more for every
> > project, the same version or a different one), while the binary
> > repository would contain only one per version.
> >
> You so *totally* don't get it.
> If the JAR files are checked in to the CVS or SVN repository, then
> ***100%*** of the bandwith costs for downloading those binary JARs
> goes to the Apache Software Foundation, because doing a "cvs update"
> or "svn update" to update your source repository will *always*
> download the copy in the source repository (i.e. using ASF's
> bandwidth).  There is no opportunity for the bandwidth costs to be
> shared, because nobody downloading from the source repository will
> ever be redirected to a mirror (where the bandwidth charges might be
> redirected).
> The technical and process reasons for not putting generated artifacts
> into source repositories are still relevant (which, independent of the
> cost issue, are sufficient to argue against such a practice) ... but
> what you are proposing is that the ASF should pay for ***you*** (who
> are checking out sources, presumably because you want to work on them)
> can be lazy.  I'm not at ***all*** sympathetic -- I want the money
> that is contributed to ASF's bandwidth to go towards supporting
> ***users*** of the software being downloaded.
> Interestingly, this is a place where the ASF culture of meritocracy
> plays a  positive role ... if you can't figure out what dependencies
> you need to download separately, in order to compile the source, then
> there is either a problem with the documentation for that project's
> build environment, or laziness on the part of the developer in
> following the provided instructions.  If you won't even read the
> directions, then the problem is definitely in your court :-).  If you
> read them but don't like them, then maybe the world doesn't really
> need whatever contributions you might have made to the world had you
> been able to compile that particular project.
> NOTE -- most open source releases include a pointer to the
> corresponding source distributions (or the source is embedded in a
> binary release), which users can load into the relevant IDEs they are
> using (to provide code completion and/or javadocs).  In addition, the
> relevant ASF binary release packages we are talking about generally
> include all the corresponding binary dependencies (unless there are
> license related issues), so this thread ends up being totally about
> developers who want to download the raw source code from the
> appropriate CVS or SVN repository -- if that's you, then please get
> used to downloading your own dependencies (or cajoling the committers
> on the project in question to providing some easy mechanism to do
> this).
> Craig

View raw message