So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read everyone's responses.
Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can tell it replaces all the artifact resolution handling. This is handled through methods like RepositorySystem.resolveDependencies. This relegates Maven to the status of pretty much just a plugin processor. I would be much less concerned if aether-api was hosted somewhere outside of Apache or was even javax.repository or somesuch thing. But aether-impl, etc belong in Maven, IMO. Brian and I spoke at the last ApacheCon about the need to enhance the pom and the only way we could see to do that was to have a new project descriptor in addition to the pom. The ability to do this - and is something I have been planning on working on once 3.0 is stable - would now be out of the control of this project. Although I like the structure of the code very much I am inclined to do one of two things: 1. Vote -1 for inclusion. 2. Take the code as it is under the Apache license and check it in to Maven's SVN. The only thing preventing this would be the -1 vote I would expect from Sonatype employees. An alternative approach to this would be to check it into a new incubator project. This would only require a majority vote of the incubator PMC and would be allowable under the license. However, I don't consider this a viable option as it would be too disruptive to the incubator unless Sonatype supported this, which it is clear they do not. I believe in "The Apache Way" - Community over Code. I am not in favor of adopting a direction that relegates the Maven project to almost the point of irrelevance. However, I also believe that the community should not be blocked by a single individual so if I am the only one who feels that gutting the Maven project is a bad thing then I will simply abstain from voting. But frankly, the arguments in favor of hosting Aether outside of the ASF has left me wondering why the proposal wasn't to move the whole project out of the ASF. And for what it is worth, I have appreciated when those of you who are employed by Sonatype have explicitly included that in your replies on this topic. Ralph On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:54 AM, John Casey wrote: > > All due respect, but that dodges the question of separating and standardizing > the API from the implementation. It also dodges the discussion about who sets > the design of the repository format and the API spec used to access it. > > You're asking the Maven community to give up one of its greatest creations - > the repository format that has become a de facto standard - and become > completely dependent on a project whose future may be uncertain. It's easy to > talk about companies as these fixtures in the market, but the fact is we're > talking about giving complete control over the Maven repository API / format > to a start-up. Start-ups are not known for their stability. Then, the company > in control _may_ decide (unilaterally) to move the whole shebang to Eclipse. > There's absolutely no role for Maven developers in this model, unless they go > out and re-establish their merit on a new project. > > I'm not talking about the merit to contribute implementation details - though > the ASF concept of non-expiring merit argues strongly against losing access > to that. What I'm talking about is the right to contribute to the design of > the repository format, API, and SPI (now that I notice that's separate from > the API). The language we use to share artifacts and metadata should not be > under the sole control of a private entity. > > Sure, there haven't been too many contributors to Maven 3. But how much of > that has to do with the velocity of work done and paid for by Sonatype, the > dramatic and repeated shift in direction by those paid contributions (mercury > for example), the need to chase code from SVN to GitHub, to still other > GitHub repositories, and the lack of discussion of the design of any of it? > > It makes me uneasy to see how much this has become a skunkworks type of > project, where much of the development takes place behind closed doors and > then gets dumped on the Maven community. > > Maven contributors established the foundational concepts (and code, from what > I can tell) for Aether; Aether is a refactoring of that essential design and > format. If you expect Maven to use Aether, then the Maven community deserves > some say in the future of the format and API. That's my opinion. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
