Quantcast

central repository for NMaven artifacts

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

central repository for NMaven artifacts

brettporter
Administrator
Hi,

For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have  
this:
http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/

There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they  
were never shipped to a remote repository.

I would like to start getting those into central.

I think there are these options:
(a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :  
NUnit.Framework
(b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that  
are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
(c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as  
is, ie NUnit : NUnit.Framework
(d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with  
group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework

I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?

Cheers,
Brett

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

Shane Isbell
I'm in favor of (b) as well. If we are deploying the original
NUnit.Framework assembly off of the NUnit site, then org.nunit makes sense,
but if its a recompile, we should use our own key to sign and pick a
different groupId (say org.apache.maven.dotnet).

Shane

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have this:
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/
>
> There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they were
> never shipped to a remote repository.
>
> I would like to start getting those into central.
>
> I think there are these options:
> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
> NUnit.Framework
> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are
> more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with
> group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>
> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [hidden email]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

Carlos Sanchez
b) unless you expect the poms to change ;)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Shane Isbell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm in favor of (b) as well. If we are deploying the original
> NUnit.Framework assembly off of the NUnit site, then org.nunit makes sense,
> but if its a recompile, we should use our own key to sign and pick a
> different groupId (say org.apache.maven.dotnet).
>
> Shane
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have this:
>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/
>>
>> There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they were
>> never shipped to a remote repository.
>>
>> I would like to start getting those into central.
>>
>> I think there are these options:
>> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
>> NUnit.Framework
>> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are
>> more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
>> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
>> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with
>> group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>>
>> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

Wendy Smoak
In reply to this post by brettporter
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to start getting those into central.
>
> I think there are these options:
> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
> NUnit.Framework
> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are more
> maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with group
> IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>
> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?

I like (b) also, but I'm not sure about the capitalization... when I
install NUnit, the file in the bin directory is just
"nunit.framework.dll".

--
Wendy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

brettporter
Administrator
What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for  
artifacts, and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I  
have <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than  
break the convention on the artifact ID.

Is everyone ok with:
* CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
* using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
* selection of (b) below

If so, I'll proceed to set this up.

Thanks,
Brett

On 16/10/2008, at 4:11 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> I would like to start getting those into central.
>>
>> I think there are these options:
>> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
>> NUnit.Framework
>> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that  
>> are more
>> maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as  
>> is, ie
>> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
>> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet 
>> with group
>> IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>>
>> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>
> I like (b) also, but I'm not sure about the capitalization... when I
> install NUnit, the file in the bin directory is just
> "nunit.framework.dll".
>
> --
> Wendy

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

Mimil-3
Hi,

Concerning the repository location I think that having a dedicated repository by language (imagine that maven can be used for any programming language) is a good idea because of the following points:

- it allows to see what is really available for the language you are using
- maybe the maintainers of these repositories will be different ...

Regards,
Cedric,
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

Wendy Smoak
In reply to this post by brettporter
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for artifacts,
> and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I have
> <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than break the
> convention on the artifact ID.
>
> Is everyone ok with:
> * CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
> * using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
> * selection of (b) below

I think we should respect the name of the artifact as shipped by NUnit
(and installed into the GAC by the NUnit installer).  Otherwise when
NMaven tries to import a project and searches the repository based on
the reference in the project file, it isn't going to find a match.

In Java most things are lowercase-with-dashes, but a few artifacts
like UMLGraph aren't.

--
Wendy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

brettporter
Administrator
Good point.

Any other opinions on this? Either way, nunit is going to be an anomaly.

- Brett

On 31/10/2008, at 10:27 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for  
>> artifacts,
>> and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I have
>> <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than break  
>> the
>> convention on the artifact ID.
>>
>> Is everyone ok with:
>> * CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
>> * using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
>> * selection of (b) below
>
> I think we should respect the name of the artifact as shipped by NUnit
> (and installed into the GAC by the NUnit installer).  Otherwise when
> NMaven tries to import a project and searches the repository based on
> the reference in the project file, it isn't going to find a match.
>
> In Java most things are lowercase-with-dashes, but a few artifacts
> like UMLGraph aren't.
>
> --
> Wendy

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: central repository for NMaven artifacts

brettporter
Administrator
In reply to this post by Mimil-3
This is a reasonable point - though perhaps something we can deal with  
at a later point since at the moment there is an overlap, and the  
benefit of not needing to configure an additional repository in every  
POM is a big one.

- Brett

On 28/10/2008, at 7:25 AM, Mimil wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Concerning the repository location I think that having a dedicated
> repository by language (imagine that maven can be used for any  
> programming
> language) is a good idea because of the following points:
>
> - it allows to see what is really available for the language you are  
> using
> - maybe the maintainers of these repositories will be different ...
>
> Regards,
> Cedric,
>
>
> -----
> May the Moo force be with you,
> Said Mimil
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/central-repository-for-NMaven-artifacts-tp19987877p20206236.html
> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Loading...