You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to repo-maintainers@maven.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2008/12/04 14:07:36 UTC
adding .NET artifacts to the central repository
Back in August, Shane, Carlos, Wendy and I agreed on a naming
convention for NMaven artifacts and that they should be included in
the central repository: http://markmail.org/message/6vzevjulw3lak3an
I uploaded a sample repository on vmbuild, with some NUnit poms: http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/org/nunit/NUnit.Framework/2.4.8.0/NUnit.Framework-2.4.8.0.pom
The POM format, containing no plugins, will be compatible between the
different .NET tooling as long as they adhere to the same <type/>
naming scheme. The POM uses the one from the NMaven trunk as it
concluded in the incubator.
I'd make a change to the above to take Wendy's suggestion to rename
the artifact nunit.framework (lowercase) and remove the final name for
consistency with the original download.
If there are no final objections here I'd like to start accepting and
processing upload requests and documenting the conventions on the repo
section of the Maven site.
Thanks,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: adding .NET artifacts to the central repository
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi Shane,
Sorry should have thought about whether you were subscribed to the
list. It's probably the best place to discuss it, let me know if you
are so I can drop the CC.
On 05/12/2008, at 7:44 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> I'm in agreement that we shouldn't be pushing .NET assemblies out
> just yet.
ok, are you still in agreement that /maven2 is the best eventual
place, or a separate repo on central?
I'm fine with keeping it in "beta" and subject to change for now,
which is essentially what the current repo is, but I think it'd be
good to move it off vmbuild now.
>
>
> One area I'd like to discuss is tying together keys with group Ids.
> So if
> someone from Apache (or where ever), compiles the artifact, they own
> it and
> should use their own groupId for the artifact. A couple of years ago,
> compiling a version of NUnit with .NET or Mono would result in an
> assembly
> that was incompatible with DotGNU, so I had to make some tweaks to
> the NUnit
> source to get it to work, resulting in a different artifact. I would
> not
> want to put that up in the org.nunit namespace.
Sure, this is compatible with the current central policy.
>
>
> We could also do signature verification to group id before allowing
> the
> upload.
>
> Personally, I like the upper case on the artifact Ids, as this
> follows .NET
> standard conventions, but it's not something I care about dictating to
> people. If a project wants to put it under their own group ID (since
> changing the name requires recompiling or at least modification of the
> assembly), then I don't really care what they do in terms of naming
> the
> artifact. I think in the case of the original nunit.framework class
> it is
> already lowercase. So that's the one that would be used.
Yep, that's what Wendy was suggesting as well.
>
>
> A couple of other issues we should address: requiring assemblies being
> signed before loading into public repo;
Agreed. In the nunit case, they are the original artifacts, and from
what I can tell they are signed.
> and looking into what meta-data we
> want embedded within the assembly. I could see groupId as a meta-tag
> being
> very useful.
You mean defining a common meta-tag name that others would use? I
think that makes sense. Requiring it might be limiting though, and re-
signing things to add it in afterwards wouldn't be practical.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: adding .NET artifacts to the central repository
Posted by Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com>.
I'm in agreement that we shouldn't be pushing .NET assemblies out just yet.
One area I'd like to discuss is tying together keys with group Ids. So if
someone from Apache (or where ever), compiles the artifact, they own it and
should use their own groupId for the artifact. A couple of years ago,
compiling a version of NUnit with .NET or Mono would result in an assembly
that was incompatible with DotGNU, so I had to make some tweaks to the NUnit
source to get it to work, resulting in a different artifact. I would not
want to put that up in the org.nunit namespace.
We could also do signature verification to group id before allowing the
upload.
Personally, I like the upper case on the artifact Ids, as this follows .NET
standard conventions, but it's not something I care about dictating to
people. If a project wants to put it under their own group ID (since
changing the name requires recompiling or at least modification of the
assembly), then I don't really care what they do in terms of naming the
artifact. I think in the case of the original nunit.framework class it is
already lowercase. So that's the one that would be used.
A couple of other issues we should address: requiring assemblies being
signed before loading into public repo; and looking into what meta-data we
want embedded within the assembly. I could see groupId as a meta-tag being
very useful.
Shane
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jason van Zyl <jv...@sonatype.com> wrote:
> This should go by Shane as he's probably got the most knowledge in this
> area.
>
> This stuff should not show up anywhere in the repository until it's fully
> vetted. Dan Fabulich also seemed to have some thoughts in this area.
>
> On 4-Dec-08, at 5:07 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> Back in August, Shane, Carlos, Wendy and I agreed on a naming convention
>> for NMaven artifacts and that they should be included in the central
>> repository: http://markmail.org/message/6vzevjulw3lak3an
>>
>> I uploaded a sample repository on vmbuild, with some NUnit poms:
>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/org/nunit/NUnit.Framework/2.4.8.0/NUnit.Framework-2.4.8.0.pom
>>
>> The POM format, containing no plugins, will be compatible between the
>> different .NET tooling as long as they adhere to the same <type/> naming
>> scheme. The POM uses the one from the NMaven trunk as it concluded in the
>> incubator.
>>
>> I'd make a change to the above to take Wendy's suggestion to rename the
>> artifact nunit.framework (lowercase) and remove the final name for
>> consistency with the original download.
>>
>> If there are no final objections here I'd like to start accepting and
>> processing upload requests and documenting the conventions on the repo
>> section of the Maven site.
>>
>
> I think it's wise to use a separate repository for a few months until all
> the kinks are worked out and things land in a location that everyone is
> going to sync. None of this has been used in practice on any wide scale and
> it's highly likely something will be wrong. What happened with the Eclipse
> artifacts getting injected into central should not happen with .net.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To do two things at once is to do neither.
>
> -—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
>
>
Re: adding .NET artifacts to the central repository
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@sonatype.com>.
This should go by Shane as he's probably got the most knowledge in
this area.
This stuff should not show up anywhere in the repository until it's
fully vetted. Dan Fabulich also seemed to have some thoughts in this
area.
On 4-Dec-08, at 5:07 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Back in August, Shane, Carlos, Wendy and I agreed on a naming
> convention for NMaven artifacts and that they should be included in
> the central repository: http://markmail.org/message/6vzevjulw3lak3an
>
> I uploaded a sample repository on vmbuild, with some NUnit poms: http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/org/nunit/NUnit.Framework/2.4.8.0/NUnit.Framework-2.4.8.0.pom
>
> The POM format, containing no plugins, will be compatible between
> the different .NET tooling as long as they adhere to the same <type/
> > naming scheme. The POM uses the one from the NMaven trunk as it
> concluded in the incubator.
>
> I'd make a change to the above to take Wendy's suggestion to rename
> the artifact nunit.framework (lowercase) and remove the final name
> for consistency with the original download.
>
> If there are no final objections here I'd like to start accepting
> and processing upload requests and documenting the conventions on
> the repo section of the Maven site.
I think it's wise to use a separate repository for a few months until
all the kinks are worked out and things land in a location that
everyone is going to sync. None of this has been used in practice on
any wide scale and it's highly likely something will be wrong. What
happened with the Eclipse artifacts getting injected into central
should not happen with .net.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
To do two things at once is to do neither.
-—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.