upload to maven repo

213 views
Skip to first unread message

Jan

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 8:16:07 AM10/8/10
to DaisyDiff
Hi,
did you guys thought of uploading binary to central maven repo? It
would make it easier to use and integrate the library in other
projects.
Cheers,
Jan

Guy Van den Broeck

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 9:18:10 AM10/8/10
to dais...@googlegroups.com
I would not mind.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DaisyDiff" group.
To post to this group, send email to dais...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to daisydiff+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/daisydiff?hl=en.


Jan

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 9:39:07 AM10/8/10
to DaisyDiff
Cool. It's relatively simple.

To do one time upload (say for existing release 1.1), you just need to
open an issue at maven central and provide the bundles (pom file and
binary, source and javadoc jars). Details at
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html

To setup more permanent process I would recommend to request oss maven
repo at sonatype - http://nexus.sonatype.org/oss-repository-hosting.html
This repo is automatically synced with the central every few hours so
whatever you deploy there will eventually appear in the central repo
as well.
And probably more interesting for you, since the daisydiff build
process is ant based, is the fact that you can upload artifacts to
oss.sonatype.org using ant. Details at
https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/Sonatype+OSS+Maven+Repository+Usage+Guide#SonatypeOSSMavenRepositoryUsageGuide-7c.StageArtifactswithAnt

If you need help with anything, let me know.

Jan


On Oct 8, 9:18 am, Guy Van den Broeck
<guy.vandenbro...@cs.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> I would not mind.
>
> 2010/10/8 Jan <jan.hade...@magnolia-cms.com>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> > did you guys thought of uploading binary to central maven repo? It
> > would make it easier to use and integrate the library in other
> > projects.
> > Cheers,
> > Jan
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "DaisyDiff" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to dais...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > daisydiff+...@googlegroups.com<daisydiff%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups .com>
> > .

Kostis Kapelonis

unread,
Oct 8, 2010, 12:48:13 PM10/8/10
to dais...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jan <jan.h...@magnolia-cms.com> wrote:
> Cool. It's relatively simple.
>

I have thought of this myself and in fact for internal development I
use Maven to build daisydiff and not Ant. However it is noted that

"Only releases can be uploaded to the central repository, that means
files that won't change and that only depend on other files already
released and available in the repository."

Daisydiff at the moment is based on

<dependency>
<groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId>
<artifactId>runtime</artifactId>
<version>20070801</version>
</dependency>

which (unless I am missing something) is not itself in Maven Central.

So possible choices are

A. Test daisydiff with a version of eclipse core that exists in Maven central
B. Embed eclipse core in daisydiff itself
C. Something else that I haven't though of.

So Jan what do you suggest we do?

Jan

unread,
Oct 11, 2010, 8:09:08 AM10/11/10
to DaisyDiff
> Daisydiff at the moment is based on
>
>         <dependency>
>                         <groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId>
>                         <artifactId>runtime</artifactId>
>                         <version>20070801</version>
>                 </dependency>
>
> which (unless I am missing something) is not itself in Maven Central.
>
> So possible choices are
>
> A. Test daisydiff with a version of eclipse core that exists in Maven central

I guess this would be the easiest to start with. Imho the project
could/should move to the newer version of the dependency like [1], but
that would definitively require some changes in the code as the API
have changed a bit.
Probably least effort would be to try against [2].

[1] http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/core/org.eclipse.core.runtime/3.6.0.v20100505/
[2] http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/core/runtime/3.3.100-v20070530/

> B. Embed eclipse core in daisydiff itself

If the core license permits embedding, you might go for it, but
personally I would prefer clearly denoted dependencies rather then
embedding.

> C. Something else that I haven't though of.
>
> So Jan what do you suggest we do?

A)

Thanks,
Jan

Kostis Kapelonis

unread,
Oct 12, 2010, 1:45:20 PM10/12/10
to dais...@googlegroups.com
>
> If the core license permits embedding, you might go for it, but
> personally I would prefer clearly denoted dependencies rather then
> embedding.
>

Actually, I just noticed that it is a bit more complicated than this.
At the moment daisyDiff is based on

A. The eclipse runtime jar
B. Eclipse "compare" code which is already embedded in the DaisyDiff
source code.

See http://code.google.com/p/daisydiff/source/browse/#svn/trunk/daisydiff/src/java/org/eclipse/compare

The runtime jar is actually used from the Eclipse "compare" code and
not daisyDiff itself.

Also it seems to be that eclipse runtime versions from the maven repo
(even from 2007) are completely different that those found at the
Daisy
Diff Source code.

Jan

unread,
Oct 14, 2010, 8:11:39 AM10/14/10
to DaisyDiff
>
> The runtime jar is actually used from the Eclipse "compare" code and
> not daisyDiff itself.
>
> Also it seems to be that eclipse runtime versions from the maven repo
> (even from 2007) are completely different that those found at the
> Daisy
> Diff Source code.

hmm, and as far as I can tell, the produced daisydiff.jar also
contains xerces and cyberneko code which should not be there either.
I'll try to split all the dependencies into separate packages. It will
be easier to request upload of eclipse compare in separate package and
argue that it is what it is rather then have it embedded in the
daisydiff jar itself.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages