Hi Frederic, but that's not quite true ... each maven repo has a root and relative to that the groupId, artifactId and version make up the relative path finished by the file name containing the artifactId, version and classifier.
In Flexmojos I handle the config.zip in a way that it is fetched as zip and extracted prior to the execution of the compiler. So it should be possible to fix up a zipped Air thingy and somehow handle that ... so if it's the problem "all or nothing" then we could handle this. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 22:56 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RE: License Stuff > 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 >> >
