Also, are you advocating that all incubator snapshots go to the central repo??? you will have #2 and #3 anyways even if we publish the released artifacts to central repo.
One more thing, If you are end user downloading a released incubator artifact, how many times does maven down load it into their local hard disk repo from p.a.o? please say just once. thanks, dims On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#1) This is by design. We don't want to make it easy. #2 and #3) i don't really have anything to day. #4) is a problem. We can address it say by asking infra to rsync it to say the eu boxes #5) I really hope you don't do this :) thanks, dims On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:33, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Could you please summarize the "difficulties"/"inconvenience" in the > > current status quo? > > There are a few main issues: > > 1) Finding stuff - when a user is searching for the groupId/artifactId > of something, they generally just go look in central. There are a > couple of maven repository search engines that just index central. > For example, if I KNOW I need an orb, I know Yoko has an orb, I know > it's org.apache.yoko for the groupId, but I don't know it's yoko-core > for the artifactId, it turns up empty if I try a search. > > 2) It REALLY slows down the builds for everyone that takes an incubator > dependency. When you define a repository in your pom, maven looks > there FIRST for EVERY artifact. Thus, if you add the incubator > repository to grab a single incubator artifact, your build will get a > LOT slower as it looks there for EVERYTHING. For me, pings to p.a.o are > ~90ms. Pings to central are ~42ms. You're basically adding at least > a 1/10 of a second for every artifact in my builds that's NOT in the > incubator repository. > > 3) Load on p.a.o. Because of (2), it can be a lot of traffic on p.a.o. > Most will result in 404 errors, but still, that's a lot of uneeded > connections. > > 4) Because the incubator repository is not mirrored, if p.a.o goes down > or the link to apache goes down, a lot of projects will be unable to > even build. If central goes down, there are several mirrors on the > net, like ibiblio, that people can redirect central to. > > 5) Having them separate from central really only annoys those who > actually want to use the official apache versions. For my customers, I > could easily create a com.dankulp:orb:1.0 pom that just depends on yoko > from the incubator repository. That can be put in central and my > customers can depend on that and not even know they are getting the > stuff from incubator. They would still be using the actual apache > incubator jars, but they wouldn't have to know about it. > > Do I need to continue? > > Dan > > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On 3/15/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 March 2007 11:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > > > > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > > > > > > > My personal opinion is that an "incubator" in the groupId or > > > > > > > artifactId would be more than sufficient to mark the > > > > > > > Incubator status > > > > > > > > > > The version attribute is more appropriate IMO, and what was > > > > > agreed upon in an earlier thread on this list. > > > > > > > > As I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong, if I > > > > download a program that builds using Maven, and it has > > > > dependencies in its pom.xml on Incubator artifiacts, then if > > > > Incubator artifacts are conflated with ASF artifacts, then when I > > > > built the program, it will automatically download the Incubator > > > > artifacts from the repository without my being aware of the > > > > dependency. However, if the Incubator artifacts are segregated > > > > into a separate repository, then Maven will not download them > > > > until I, the downstream user, add that repository to Maven. Is > > > > that correct or incorrect? > > > > > > Semi correct. > > > > > > If my project directly depends on incubator artifacts, I would need > > > to put the incubator repository in my pom. However, if I depend on > > > another project that depends on incubator artifacts, I wouldn't > > > because most likely, their poms have a repository entry for the > > > incubator. > > > > > > As an example. Let's say I am writing a project that depends on > > > geronimo 1.2-beta. Geronimo 1.2-beta depends on several incubator > > > artifacts (yoko, openejb, some active mq stuff, etc..). The > > > geronimo pom defines the incubator repository. Thus, anything from > > > the incubator that it needs will automatically be grabbed without me > > > knowing about it. > > > > > > The only time a user is forced to acknowledge it by defining the > > > incubator repository is if they take a DIRECT dependency. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > J. Daniel Kulp > > > Principal Engineer > > > IONA > > > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > J. Daniel Kulp > Principal Engineer > IONA > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers
-- Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
