central repository for NMaven artifacts

[brettporter]

Hi,

For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have  
this:
http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/

There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they  
were never shipped to a remote repository.

I would like to start getting those into central.

I think there are these options:
(a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :  
NUnit.Framework
(b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that  
are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
(c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as  
is, ie NUnit : NUnit.Framework
(d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with  
group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework

I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?

Cheers,
Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Shane Isbell]

I'm in favor of (b) as well. If we are deploying the original
NUnit.Framework assembly off of the NUnit site, then org.nunit makes sense,
but if its a recompile, we should use our own key to sign and pick a
different groupId (say org.apache.maven.dotnet).

Shane

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have this:
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/
>
> There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they were
> never shipped to a remote repository.
>
> I would like to start getting those into central.
>
> I think there are these options:
> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
> NUnit.Framework
> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are
> more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with
> group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>
> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[Carlos Sanchez-11]

b) unless you expect the poms to change ;)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Shane Isbell <shane.isbell@...> wrote:

> I'm in favor of (b) as well. If we are deploying the original
> NUnit.Framework assembly off of the NUnit site, then org.nunit makes sense,
> but if its a recompile, we should use our own key to sign and pick a
> different groupId (say org.apache.maven.dotnet).
>
> Shane
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For pure, as released, 3rd party .NET artifacts, currently, we have this:
>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/
>>
>> There were some scripts in 0.14 for installing things locally but they were
>> never shipped to a remote repository.
>>
>> I would like to start getting those into central.
>>
>> I think there are these options:
>> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
>> NUnit.Framework
>> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are
>> more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
>> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
>> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with
>> group IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>>
>> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@...
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:

> I would like to start getting those into central.
>
> I think there are these options:
> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
> NUnit.Framework
> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that are more
> maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as is, ie
> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet with group
> IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>
> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?

I like (b) also, but I'm not sure about the capitalization... when I
install NUnit, the file in the bin directory is just
"nunit.framework.dll".

--
Wendy

[brettporter]

What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for  
artifacts, and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I  
have <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than  
break the convention on the artifact ID.

Is everyone ok with:
* CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
* using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
* selection of (b) below

If so, I'll proceed to set this up.

Thanks,
Brett

On 16/10/2008, at 4:11 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...>  
> wrote:
>> I would like to start getting those into central.
>>
>> I think there are these options:
>> (a) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 as is, ie NUnit :
>> NUnit.Framework
>> (b) put them into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2 with group IDs that  
>> are more
>> maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>> (c) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet as  
>> is, ie
>> NUnit : NUnit.Framework
>> (d) put them in a new repo such as http://repo1.maven.org/dotnet 
>> with group
>> IDs that are more maven-like, ie org.nunit : NUnit.Framework
>>
>> I'm leaning towards (b). Thoughts? Any other options I've missed?
>
> I like (b) also, but I'm not sure about the capitalization... when I
> install NUnit, the file in the bin directory is just
> "nunit.framework.dll".
>
> --
> Wendy

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Mimil]

Hi,

Concerning the repository location I think that having a dedicated repository by language (imagine that maven can be used for any programming language) is a good idea because of the following points:

- it allows to see what is really available for the language you are using
- maybe the maintainers of these repositories will be different ...

Regards,
Cedric,

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:
> What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for artifacts,
> and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I have
> <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than break the
> convention on the artifact ID.
>
> Is everyone ok with:
> * CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
> * using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
> * selection of (b) below

I think we should respect the name of the artifact as shipped by NUnit
(and installed into the GAC by the NUnit installer).  Otherwise when
NMaven tries to import a project and searches the repository based on
the reference in the project file, it isn't going to find a match.

In Java most things are lowercase-with-dashes, but a few artifacts
like UMLGraph aren't.

--
Wendy

[brettporter]

Good point.

Any other opinions on this? Either way, nunit is going to be an anomaly.

- Brett

On 31/10/2008, at 10:27 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Brett Porter <brett@...>  
> wrote:
>> What I'm led to believe is that CamelCase is the convention for  
>> artifacts,
>> and that NUnit might be an exception. For that reason, I have
>> <finalName>nunit.framework</finalName> in the POM rather than break  
>> the
>> convention on the artifact ID.
>>
>> Is everyone ok with:
>> * CamelCase as the convention for artifact IDs
>> * using finalName for NUnit rather than changing the artifact ID
>> * selection of (b) below
>
> I think we should respect the name of the artifact as shipped by NUnit
> (and installed into the GAC by the NUnit installer).  Otherwise when
> NMaven tries to import a project and searches the repository based on
> the reference in the project file, it isn't going to find a match.
>
> In Java most things are lowercase-with-dashes, but a few artifacts
> like UMLGraph aren't.
>
> --
> Wendy

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[brettporter]

This is a reasonable point - though perhaps something we can deal with  
at a later point since at the moment there is an overlap, and the  
benefit of not needing to configure an additional repository in every  
POM is a big one.

- Brett

On 28/10/2008, at 7:25 AM, Mimil wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Concerning the repository location I think that having a dedicated
> repository by language (imagine that maven can be used for any  
> programming
> language) is a good idea because of the following points:
>
> - it allows to see what is really available for the language you are  
> using
> - maybe the maintainers of these repositories will be different ...
>
> Regards,
> Cedric,
>
>
> -----
> May the Moo force be with you,
> Said Mimil
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/central-repository-for-NMaven-artifacts-tp19987877p20206236.html
> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/