yeah, I think that using the resolver itself to retrieve the settings is elegant. another advantage is that the settings can be stored in the cache, so that building completely from cache remains possible with a remote settings file. offline builds are very important to the build system that I work in, because we have a lot of remote developers who don't have VPN access to our servers 100% of the time.
also, I think that it makes sense to keep the resolver artifacts and a file that describes where the artifacts are stored "in the same place". kind of like the use of annotations or xdoclet to store information about java methods near the methods, so that if you update one, you are more likely to update the other. -----Original Message----- From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 1/4/2008 5:00 PM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: On-server ivy settings? On Jan 4, 2008 10:15 PM, Jason Trump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > New feature suggestion (obviously not for 2.0): allow some kind of > optional ivy settings file on the ivy repository. This would allow for less > configuration on the ivy client side, and make it easier to update the > structure of your ivy repository. Things that could go in this file: > > * artifact and ivy patterns for the repository > * repository-sensitive cache hints like changingPattern and > changingMatcher > * pointers to other repositories where artifacts are stored (so that > client doesn't have to know about these) > * lists of mirror or backup servers to improve availability > > though maybe the last one is better handled in custom repository > implementations. The client config would then look something like: > > <ivysettings> > ... > <resolvers> > <url settings="/server/path/to/ivysettings.xml"/> > </resolvers> > </ivysettings> > > I know that you can do similar things with a remote ivysettings.xml file, > but I liked the idea of putting information about the ivy repository in the > repository itself. What do you think? Is it worth mentioning in a JIRA > issue? I like the idea (I actually already thought about promoting this before) but I see only slight difference with the settings include mechanism. Or maybe you would like to use the provisionning mechanism of the resolver to fetch the settings (indlue only works with url and files, while we have resolvers for scp or other protocols). Is it what you are thinking about? Or is it just syntactic sugar above the include mechanism? Xavier > > > jason > > ________________________________ > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Fri 1/4/2008 7:24 AM > To: dev@ant.apache.org > Subject: Consolidate cache related settings > > > > On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 AM, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One thing I'd still like to change in this area besides the fix and > > improvement in flexibility is to make repository cache managers > responsible > > for managing the useOrigin flag. It would be much more consistent IMO, > and > > also more flexible, allowing to use one cache manager for one resolver > with > > useOrigin=true, and another cache manager for another resolver with > > useOrigin=false. > > > > This would mean removing useOrigin flag from the tasks, and adding it to > > the cache settings (which will have to be improved to allow per resolver > > cache manager). Since this would be a task backward incompatibility > (which > > we tend to avoid to ease 2.0 migration), I'd actually keep the useOrigin > > attribute on the related tasks, but deprecate it, and only set a > property > > from the value set on the attribute. Then this property would be used as > > default value for the useOrigin flag on the default repository cache > manager > > (used by all resolvers unless they specify another repository cache > > manager). > > > After more work on the cache management, I see other settings which > currently belongs to dependency resolvers and would better go in cache > manager IMO: > - check modified > - changing pattern and changing matcher > > Indeed these settings are used to know if a module metadata or artifacts > can > change, and this is useful only for caching purpose. So instead of putting > these settings on the resolvers, I think moving them to cache manager > would > be more consistent. As for the useOrigin, we should still try to be > backward > compatible. We could say that the default values for check modified and > changing patterns and matchers in a cache manager may depend on the > context > in which they are being used (in other words let the dependency resolver > override the default when calling the cache manager). > > Any objection? > > Xavier > > -- > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant > http://xhab.blogspot.com/ > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ > http://www.xoocode.org/ > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant http://xhab.blogspot.com/ http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ http://www.xoocode.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
