Well at sonatype they do distinguish between SNAPSHOT and Release Versions. So the process of updating SNAPSHOTS is far less complicated than that of deploying Releases. But I still think that your process of creating individual users will introduce some Problems (Settings.xml sharing)
Nevertheless ... I think I should make Flexmojos use the Apache GID ... I doubt I will find the time to work much on the new plugin in the near future and I would like to have promote the Apachiness of Flex ;-) Chris ________________________________________ Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 16:07 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RE: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer Chris, Do you think Sonatype would allows the creation of specific user granted to download the SDK ? It would be nice but I'm not sure, plus I would need to deal with their heavy process to deal with snapshot and release on non-maven built projects, I don't today, I just upload a zip and tomorrow, I will just tell jenkins to deploy the build (mavenized SDK) to Artifactory, not sure it is as easy as that with sonatype, at least from what I remember. What do you think ? Frédéric THOMAS > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:18:50 +0100 > Subject: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > 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
