I would think that you should be able to do that from an enforcer rule... Of course I have not tried...
But if you need those kind of changes in enforcer, that would be a lot quicker to get than changes to Maven's core... Plus, such a custom rule would be of use to not just commercial projects, but also open source projects On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Ishaaq Chandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > that would possibly work if there is a way for the enforcer to retrieve > scope information from the artifact - is this possible? > > Is it also possible for transitive dependencies, i.e., will the enforcer let > me allow the same artifact to go through when using it as a transitive dep > of a test-scope artifact but at the same time disallow the same artifact > when it is used as the transitive dep of a compile-scope artifact? > > I am unfamiliar with the API for custom enforcer rules and the documentation > on the maven site does not give me the level of detail I am looking for in > order to be able to answer these question easily myself. > > Ishaaq > > 2008/7/1 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> To my mind what you want to do is write an enforcer custom rule that >> checks all the compile and runtime scoped dependencies against a >> whitelist server... >> >> I'd have a webserver that can e.g. take a query of the form >> >> >> http://someurl/.../check?groupId=____&artifactId=_____&version=_____&classifier=____ >> >> and either returns TRUE or FALSE. >> >> Then write an enforcer custom rule, the config provides the base url >> to check against and specifies the scope to apply the rule to. >> >> That way you don't care what repository any dependency came from, and >> you just maintain your compile and runtime whitelist(s) >> >> BTW, you might want different whitelists for compile and runtime scopes! >> >> You might compile against a CDDL licensed jar but use a runtime >> dependency that is commercial >> >> -Stephen >> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Ishaaq Chandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, that could possibly work except that there is no way I can get that >> > internal locked down build to actually run - remember that maven does >> > everything via plugins - even the compilation is done using a plugin - so >> > all the plugins would have to be added to the closed repo - thus >> polluting >> > it with potentially legally incompatible artifacts. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Ishaaq >> > >> > 2008/7/1 Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >> Hi Ishaaq, >> >> >> >> Ishaaq Chandy wrote: >> >> >> >> > Aha! I think I see now why you think I have a special case, I think >> its a >> >> > simple case of misunderstanding - for which I'll assume all fault is >> mine >> >> > :) >> >> > >> >> > Locked down versioning is not really the point. Even if we had a >> locked >> >> > versions of the test (in fact we do lock the test dependency versions) >> >> and >> >> > plugin artifacts that does not really resolve my issue: >> >> > >> >> > 1. I need to ensure that the build only uses legally vetted versions >> of >> >> > compile/runtime dependencies. >> >> > >> >> > 2. On the other hand I can also have test and plugin deps (whether or >> not >> >> > I lock down their versions is immaterial) but my vetting process over >> >> them >> >> > are negligible and in fact, in the case of metrics gathering (for e.g. >> >> > code coverage etc) developers are actively encouraged to be on the >> >> lookout >> >> > for new tools that can improve the build process and QA. It is quite >> >> > possible and permissible that the latter actually have licenses that >> >> > forbid redistribution. >> >> > >> >> > The easiest way to implement the latter is to point the build to the >> >> maven >> >> > central repo or an internal proxy of it. >> >> > >> >> > The correct way to implement the former is via a restricted-access >> >> > internally managed repo. >> >> > >> >> > It turns out the two are incompatible because of maven's inability to >> >> > differentiate between the sources for differing-scoped artifacts. >> >> However, >> >> > I still do not think that these are niche, edge-case requirements, I >> >> think >> >> > they are quite reasonable. It just so happens that I do not lock down >> >> > plugin versions, but even if I did do so the problem does not go away. >> >> The >> >> > crux of the problem is that I want to proxy to maven central for some >> >> > types of artifacts and to my private repo for other types of artifacts >> >> and >> >> > I don't want maven to bleed dependency resolution from one repo to the >> >> > other. >> >> > >> >> > Oh, and as I mentioned in passing in a previous post, we don't really >> >> need >> >> > long-term repeatability of the build - once it is released, an old >> >> version >> >> > of our product rarely needs to be checked out of source-control and >> >> > rebuilt from scratch. In the short term it is less likely that our >> build >> >> > will break because a plugin got upgraded - and even if it did, because >> we >> >> > use continuous integration it would quickly be caught and fixed. >> However, >> >> > this is really a side issue, if I had to lock down the versions of the >> >> > plugins to resolve my problem, I'd happily do that, but I don't think >> >> that >> >> > solves the problem. >> >> >> >> You might take a different approach using two different settings.xml and >> a >> >> internal-test profile (name it whatever you like). You can specify the >> >> settings file on the command line for maven. >> >> >> >> settings-product.xml: >> >> - define an own location for the local repo >> >> - define the approved company repo as remote repo >> >> - set the approved company repo as mirror for anything >> >> >> >> settings-internal.xml: >> >> - define an own location for the local repo >> >> - define the approved company repo as remote repo >> >> - activate profile "internal-test" by default >> >> >> >> If you run CI with settings-product.xml, you ensure that nothing has >> crept >> >> in. You may even run Ci twice, once for each setting to ensure no >> breakage. >> >> >> >> Your devs may choose also between the two settings, but they will have >> to >> >> put anything into the internal-test profile (deps, plugins, >> >> includes/excludes for the compiler, javadoc and surefire plugin) that >> >> depends on "unapproved" artifacts. >> >> >> >> - Jörg >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
