Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[Fwd: Re: [iam-dev] Re: [technology-pmc] Eclipse IAM: Possible need for 3rd party dependency approval]


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [iam-dev] Re: [technology-pmc] Eclipse IAM: Possible need for 3rd party dependency approval
Date: 	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:09:39 -0500
From: 	Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 	IAM development conversations <iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5f815e320812100224u25dfa113pd00d7a454af07302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <493FE85E.5060306@xxxxxxxxxxx> <F688D12C-C914-4444-9EC2-3B6E2D434C56@xxxxxxxxx> <4942B459.9000602@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5370BF6A-BD57-4ADB-B4C4-B5133660FD73@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi Abel.

It sounds to me like the "central Maven repository" is a potential "exempt pre-requisite". Which means that IAM should be able to include some knowledge of how to find and access that respository. Ultimately, we'll need to get EMO approval on that.

Further, my sense is that by adding a link to another repository (or however it is that you do this sort of thing), the user is giving IAM explicit permission to access the archetypes available from that repository.

FWIW, it's true that p2 can be used to install arbitrary things without the user's consent. However, that's not how it *is* being used (or rather how it should be used by an Eclipse project). A company could take p2 and use it as part of their project to install whatever they want; this would be an issue between that company and their end users.

Does this make sense/help?


Abel Muiño Vizcaino wrote:
Hello Wayne,

El 12/12/2008, a las 19:58, Wayne Beaton escribió:

Does the user enter the URL for the Archetype, or is the URL somehow embedded in the software?

If the URLs are provided by the user, then there should be no problem.

It is a bit complicated... there is not such thing as "the URL". The user only declares the archetype to use. That declaration is then looked up in an artifact repository (by default maven central repository, but it is considered good practice to use a corporate "mirror"). The actual repository used depends on a set of rules set by the end user.

I've been thinking that writing an overview of how IAM/maven operates and relate that to the policy for 3rd party dependencies ( could help us moving forward. What do you think?

If the IAM project contains built-in URLs to existing repositories, then we'll need a works-with CQ (probably one for each URL, but this may require additional thought). We'll have to get EMO agreement.

It should not be a problem from our side if it is limited to the url or the maven central repository. However, as noted above, that repository might not be used at all (and as stated previously, it is impossible to review every possible artifact in a maven repository).

In either case, the download needs to be obvious. We need IAM to show a dialog saying something to the effect of "you're about to download some code not vetted by the Eclipse IP process" or something to that effect (it might be enough to say that the code is "external"). If the thing being downloaded has a license attached to it, the user needs to be given an explicit opportunity to view and accept that license.

Technically, that can be done, although I'm very worried about the resulting user experience. What would you consider "obvious"? Showing the download progress? A note on the user interface?

FWIW, Buckminster and P2 both do this.

No attack intended on any of these projects.

But we use the P2 director (headless) application to assemble out target platform (installing EPL'ed and non EPL'ed bundles) and it does not show any license agreement.

And I strongly believe that this is the right thing to do (from an end-user point of view, I've explicitly declared what I want to use, so I know what I'm getting into).

Back to the top