james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: Maven 2 and repositories, redux
Date Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:20:16 GMT
Stefano Bagnara wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Remember that these are root directories.  For another example, the RDF
> > files don't belong on the web site.  They are meta-data published only
via
> > SVN for the ASF's internal use.  So site/ was the site related content,
not
> > just the site.  It was what we had factored out from the code trees.

> Yes, and this is why james-project doesn't belong to site: it is used to
> build our maven2 based products, so it is part of the source code of our
> products.

Spanning a single versionable entity across more than one {ttb} structure is
rather odd, but it is possible preferable to svn:external.

> It is clear that we don't have a consensus here... and it seems to me
> that is something more religious than technical

I'm not so sure of that, but we can fix anything later.

> From your words it seems to me that ASF has much restrictive requirement
> for James and that this requirements do not apply to jakarta, directory,
> maven and other maven based tlp projects, but I can't find documentation
> on the apache site with regard to this issue (or difference).

Which words?  What did you read from any of the folks on repository@, when
they spoke against using the download mechanism and said to use local,
file-based, repositories because of problems with Maven-driven traffic and
security issues that was different?

> Yes, project has now a ttb structure and we'll need to release it when
> we'll be ready to release jspf and mime4j.

Release it as what?  As PART OF something else, e.g., jSPF?

> In my reply I also raised a few problems with that idea and proposed a
> different solution (evolution of that idea where we didn't need a
> shared repository but we simply include the per-project jars in the
> source tree for that project like we do for ant-based projects (simply
> using a different convention for the lib folder structure).

OK, so still a local, file-based, repository?  How does this substantively
differ from what Dims et al suggested?  Perhaps they didn't notice anything
different enough upon which to comment?

> We are lucky because we don't have license restricted dependencies and
> we can include all of them. My solution would not apply to projects
> depending on restricted libraries.

That's OK.  Such libraries are being so discouraged that I doubt that you
will see much of them anymore.

> With the current setup jspf and mime4j have a file based repository that
> is downloaded with the source tree for 3rd party libraries and only uses
> networking to download jars from official ASF repositories.

That's fine, with the caveat that we should make sure that no one is
complaining about our driving downloads to ASF servers.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message