Well, at one point, I thought Chris thought we didn't have to populate
Maven info throughout the entire AIR SDK tree.  It is a "leaf" so there
shouldn't be any other dependencies to chase down from deeper within that
folder tree.

A JAR is also a compressed entity, and JARs aren't exploded out to a tree,
are they?

-Alex

On 10/29/13 2:55 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> The FP SDK is just playerglobal.swc.  It is a single file so if there
>>was
>a pom.xml next to it, would that be sufficient?
>
>Thanks for make me recall again :-) yes, you're right it could be enough.
>
>> AIR is a compressed tree of files.  There is an issue about the fact
>>that
>the runtime is bundled, but otherwise, is there a capability in Maven to
>deal with compressed files that don't have the subfolders also populated
>with pom.xml and other files?  If not, what is the minimum set of changes
>we'd have to make to get an AIR SDK on the download server to work with
>Maven (skipping over the license acceptance issue for now).
>
>Not sure and surely not easily otherwise all those subtrees [1]
>
>-Fred
>
>[1]
>http://apacheflexvm.cloudapp.net/artifactory/simple/ext-release-local/com/
>ad
>obe/air/
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 22:46
>À : dev@flex.apache.org
>Objet : Re: License Stuff
>
>Like I said, I don't know much about Maven.
>
>IIRC, there was some thinking that, because the FP and AIR SDKs are the
>"leaf" of a dependency tree, there wasn't much more than a pom.xml needed.
> I believe I even looked at a few files on some Maven repo and that seemed
>to be the only major difference.  Have we since decided differently?
>
>But let's also separate out FP, from AIR.
>
>The FP SDK is just playerglobal.swc.  It is a single file so if there was
>a
>pom.xml next to it, would that be sufficient?  Would it be worth it if we
>only made non-AIR apps work well with Maven?
>
>AIR is a compressed tree of files.  There is an issue about the fact that
>the runtime is bundled, but otherwise, is there a capability in Maven to
>deal with compressed files that don't have the subfolders also populated
>with pom.xml and other files?  If not, what is the minimum set of changes
>we'd have to make to get an AIR SDK on the download server to work with
>Maven (skipping over the license acceptance issue for now).
>
>-Alex
>
>On 10/29/13 2:37 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I can't see how 1 or more pom.xml on their server could help Alex,  we
>>need artifacts and classifiers along with the project descriptor, I
>>mean trees entire mavenized SDKs. did I miss or forgot something again
>>:-) ?
>>
>>-Fred
>>
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre
>>2013 22:32 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff
>>
>>Adobe did not want to deal with registration or a way to avoid the
>>license dialog, but I'm pretty sure we got permission to put up pom.xml
>>files on the current downloads server.
>>
>>On 10/29/13 2:29 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>IIRC Adobe didn't want to invest in a server just for that.
>>>
>>>-Fred
>>>
>>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre
>>>2013 22:20 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 10/29/13 2:14 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Also, I can retrieve it at the moment but when I read the specific
>>>>Air license terms, I understood it couldn't be distributed in piece
>>>>but only in only one full and original distribution.
>>>Yes, that's probably true, and the runtimes are part of the SDK.  I
>>>don't think they make a distribution without the runtimes.
>>>
>>>Just to be sure, we once talked about Adobe putting pom.xml files on
>>>its downloads server.  Have we decided that is insufficient and a
>>>distribution agreement is better? Either way, there is some sort of a
>>>license acceptance requirement unless we can get an exemption.
>>>
>>>-Alex
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to