As usual, I'm not sure I understand Maven and Maven-izing, so apologies if I'm way off base:
IIRC, the Mavenizer's main goal is to install Adobe and other third-party assets to a on a build machine. Is that correct? I can certainly see the Installer doing that, but yes, there was a recent discussion to make the Installer more like a mini-Ant so that more of the logic will happen in an xml-based script instead of in the installer itself. The Installer would then be an engine for performing certain operations in a cross-platform way. If nobody else gets to it, I'll probably be trying to make that happen in order to roll out an alpha-level FlexJS release around the end of year. I would not advise to distribute the Adobe artifacts from Sonatype unless you establish Sonatype as a licensed distributor for those artifacts, which is definitely possible. -Alex On 10/28/13 8:22 AM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >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
