Well in that case, I would opt for creating an Apache Flex account at sonatype and to Stage and Deploy stuff there ... (The way Velo did it) ... I guess there is legally no real difference between a Company repo and the big sonatype repo. Actually we don't have permission to publish stuff in either solution.
This is also where I deploy the Flexmojos Libs as well as I helped deploy the latest FlexUnit release. On the cool side this is probably allready in the list of allmost all Major Nexus/Artifactory/Whatsoever instances and therefore there would probably not be any Problems with accessing the artifacts. But if such an Approach would be taken, I guess I would create a new Major Version of Flexmojos, which runs on Apache Flex's GID org.apache.flex instead of the current com.adobe.flex. Chris ________________________________________ Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 13:42 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RE: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer You're right, that's my exp too but from the company I'm working for at the moment, this is the only way as the installer doesn't work from here plus,I don't think an ApacheFlex VM managed by PMCs and almost dedicated to it will be "no-name" for long time :-) Frédéric THOMAS > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:18:48 +0100 > Subject: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > But from my experiance it is usually more difficult to convince the > Company-Repo admins to add a "no-name" repo as source. At least most of the > companies I've worked for. And deploying of a new Flex Version would probably > not be done by any ordinary developer, but by one Special Person that is > permitted to do so. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 10:53 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: RE: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > 1- I'm short of time at the moment and that's a long run even without > thinking to integrate with the actual code > 2- Anyway, before I integrate anything in the actual code of the installer, > its code needs to be refactored > 3- There's no jar produced at the moment for the converter, that something > to be considered too. > 4- It's not allowed in every company the user can manage the repo he wants > to access, in big ones, he has to go by the company one which in return, > proxied the repo they choose. > > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : christofer.d...@c-ware.de [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] > Envoyé : lundi 28 octobre 2013 10:43 > À : dev@flex.apache.org > Objet : AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > Still I can't really see what would be the Problem to add the mavenizer to > the Installer? I guess this would resolve any legal Problems. I do see some > Major Speed improvement Option to Switch the Deployer to use Mavens wagon > instead of making hundreds of mvn-calls, but adding the mavenizer to the > installer still seems to be the best Option from my Point of view. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 10:17 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: RE: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > Hi Justin, > > >What to stop users sharing that URL and/or user credentials around? > > I thought about it too and ended to think I don't want to add more > restrictions than what exists today, I mean today, once you accepted a > license and downloaded an Adobe Artifact, you can share it as you like, > that's not even nominative. > I just want to replicate the actual security, so, yes, if an user wants to > share the credentials, it can do it, as it can do it with the artifact > itself. > > > As long as you make it clear that these are not official releases and > > for > development use only as per Apache policy. > > Np, it will be suffixed with "-SNAPSHOT " with means in Maven, non-released > > > Could it cope with it load and the costs that is likely to incur > > (assume > 100 or 200 installs a day)? Who owns and maintains the server? Could the > apache Flex PMC be given access to it? > > From what I understand, I'm not charged or should be very low rate, I will > verify anyway, can't do it now, windowsazure has a 401. > I own and maintain the server, it is the same kind than the Erik ones, it > will serve me for some of my devs too (probably) or / and to test the SDK > RCs and I can give access to PMCs who ask me. > > Thanks, > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : lundi 28 > octobre 2013 10:03 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: Add Mavenizer > functionality to Installer > > Hi, > > > From the Installer, users already have to accept licenses for the > > third party artifacts, for those users I can grant access to a online > > maven repo which serves the Mavenized SDKs > What to stop users sharing that URL and/or user credentials around? > > > I can even add the lasts nightly mavenized build versions. > As long as you make it clear that these are not official releases and for > development use only as per Apache policy. > > > The server exist today as it serves me, it serves up to the 4.11 > > version > Could it cope with it load and the costs that is likely to incur (assume 100 > or 200 installs a day)? Who owns and maintains the server? Could the apache > Flex PMC be given access to it? > > Thanks, > Justin
