[jbossdeveloper] Maven Configuration - preferred method

Wed Aug 27 12:26:43 EDT 2014

It would definitely be easier if we don't remove the embedded 
repositories from the POM files in the shipping quickstarts.

Again, I am copying Paul and Nikoleta so they are in the loop.

On 08/27/2014 11:24 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2014, at 15:37, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>
>> After reading it I have some more reasons to think that we should do it.
>>
>> The blog isn't totally against. It says: "The short answer is: 
>> settings. The long answer is: it depends."
>
> Since I was the one being referenced let me summarize too:
>
> It is just bad period for any widely publically shared pom to add 
> additional repositories since
> it will change any downstream projects using it.
>
> That is why we say it should not be in any of the product runtime POM, 
> BOM's etc.
>
> For examples and quickstarts there is the crucial difference that 
> these pom's are *not* intended to be shared by other projects
> thus it is less of an issue and we in that thread and others weighted 
> that the out-of-box usability was greater than
> the proper best practice since these pom's are *not* to be used/shared 
> by other projects.
>
>> The main reason that they identify is that " The entries you have 
>> defined will be burned forever into your released POMs. This means 
>> that, should the URLs change down the road, anyone consuming your 
>> POMs will face these broken URLs and have to track down the new ones 
>> manually."
>
> Right now we are looking at the repository url changing multiple times 
> (/earlyaccess/all, /techpreview/all, /all) for examples so things are 
> changing (unfortunately)
>
>> For our products we have the obligation to keep it for 5 years, so we 
>> already can't change the repo URL. Plus the fact that our quickstarts 
>> are not available through the Maven Central.
>
> don't know where you get 5 years from - they need to be much longer.
>
>> The blog itself also says: " If you are exposing your source and want 
>> to make it easy for others to build, then consider adding a 
>> repository entry to your POM, but don’t pick a URL lightly, think 
>> long-term, and use a URL that will always be under your control. If 
>> your URL has to change down the road, make sure that you will always 
>> be able to track 404s and write the appropriate mod_rewrite rules to 
>> ensure that future builds will be able to find the appropriate 
>> artifacts."
>>
>> Maybe I can be trying to convince myself, but what we're trying to 
>> achieve is "exposing your our source and want to make it easy for 
>> others to build"
>
> Look under the "Open Source Projects" - those are the concerns we are 
> under. The article is talking more about it being more okey for your 
> inhouse stuff.
>
>
> Anyway - I believe for the released runtime pom's we cnanot add the 
> repository urls but for the quickstart examples it is okey because of 
> the usability aspect.
>
> /max
>
>> Em 8/27/14, 8:52, Sande Gilda escreveu:
>>> This was the email discussing the cons....
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     Re: Maven Configuration - preferred method
>>> Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:50:57 +0200
>>> From:     Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen at redhat.com>
>>> To:     Sande Gilda <sgilda at redhat.com>
>>> CC:     Burr Sutter <bsutter at redhat.com>, Pete Muir 
>>> <pmuir at redhat.com>, Paul Gier <pgier at redhat.com>, 
>>> jboss-developer-usability-internal at redhat.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I have inherited some Maven configuration documentation and am 
>>> trying to verify a statement that was made in a topic on how to 
>>> configure the project POM file to use the JBoss EAP Maven Repository.
>>> >
>>> > It basically says:
>>> > "Red Hat recommends configuring the Maven repository in your 
>>> project's pom.xml file so the configuration applies regardless of 
>>> where the project is built."
>>> > This is as opposed to using the Maven settings.
>>>
>>> This recommendation is broken standing on its own.
>>>
>>> Read:http://www.sonatype.com/people/2009/02/why-putting-repositories-in-your-poms-is-a-bad-idea/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't even do this for our own products and with good reasons.
>>>
>>> I know some projects do still do this but it has to be done very 
>>> carefully.
>>>
>>> All the arguments is in the blog from Sonatype.
>>>
>>> Thus in my opinion we should say something like:
>>>
>>> "Red Hat recommends configuration the Maven repository in your 
>>> settings.xml and only place the repositories in your pom.xml if you 
>>> understand the consequence of doing so, see <linktosontaypeblog>"
>>> "For a team the simplest way is to host the maven repository on a 
>>> shared webserver or use a repository manager such as Nexus or 
>>> Artifactory and use these settings in their ~/.m2/settings.xml"
>>>
>>> > Here are my questions:
>>> >     • Is the really the preferred and recommended configuration? 
>>> This would only work if the repository is stored on a shared server. 
>>> If the repository is installed on the local file system, this 
>>> wouldn't work.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>> >     • For distributed development, it seems like it limits what a 
>>> developer can do to optimize the build process.
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> plus if the customer is putting this into  a pom that is referred to 
>>> by other projects he can actually "inject" this repository into 
>>> other users/customers builds which expect their builds to use 
>>> nothing but their hosted repository.
>>>
>>> > What should we be recommending here? Maven settings or project 
>>> POM? Or does it just depend? Should we be recommending anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbossdeveloper mailing list
>> jbossdeveloper at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper
>
>
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen