I just signed up to the Mailinglist and sent an inquiry ... let's see what they answer. After all ... eventually they allready have signed an Agreement as Velo used to deploy stuff there ...
Chris ________________________________________ Von: Avi Kessner [akess...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 10:01 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer If I knew how/what, I would contact Sonotype. brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Well I doubt it would be possible to Setup protected Areas as this is in > contrast to the "public-repo" idea. But I would still prefer to have the > fdk deployed somewhere reliable. I know in our Business things Change quite > fast I wouldn't have immagined giving up my Consultant life and having a > full employment doing GWT stuff one year ago. But things have changed, > dramatically reducing the amount of time I have to develop the next Flex > Maven plugin (Sorry for that). I just want to prevent that one day a > posting Comes to this list, that the repo is offline because of whatsoever > reasons. As Sonatype is running Maven Central I doubt that they will go out > of Business soon, so for me it's currently the most reliable place in > Addition to the fact that it should work with any Maven Installation out of > the box. > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 19:48 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: RE: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > > 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 > > Indeed but can I upload a zip instead of doing a deploy at sonatype? I > never > tried but actually, I wouldn't use the Deployer to do it, too consuming, > especially for nightly builds. > Can they / will create a single reader role for ApacheFlex to match the > license policy requirement we have ? You've probably got more experiences > with Sonatype and can probably surprise me. > > All in all, I prefer to keep control on the non-maven standard deploy > process instead of being under the umbrella of Sonatype, I can revise my > POV > if the answer to those 2 question is YES though :-) > > > But I still think that your process of creating individual users will > introduce some Problems (Settings.xml sharing) > > I can't see any other situations than the ones we have now, as explained > before, today a user from the Adobe site, once accepted the license and > downloaded an artifact can easily share it with no problems, idem from what > the installer download, the same if I authorize a user (or a company) to > download the SDK artifacts to its local/company repo after he accepted the > licenses from the Installer (with the advantage here that a same artifact > will be downloaded only once). > > Note: The actual license agreement is not nominative, so, I wasn't thinking > about 1 credential per user but 1 credential for the accepted license > agreement to match the same idea. > > Maybe there are situations I didn't considerate yet ? > > > 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 ;-) > > I would wait for FM-Next, I wouldn't like to waste my time to re-mavenize > and re-deploy all the Flex/Air SDKs even if in case you do it, I will ;-) > > Thanks, > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : christofer.d...@c-ware.de [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] > Envoyé : lundi 28 octobre 2013 16:22 > À : dev@flex.apache.org > Objet : AW: AW: AW: Add Mavenizer functionality to Installer > > 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 >
