On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 05:52, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > Le jeu. 12 oct. 2023 à 21:15, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > écrit : > > > Howdy, > > > > As part of the new Resolver major version, one of the goals is to introduce > > HTTP/2 capable transports. And as always, naming... > > > > Current transport module names (==artifactId) are (already quite long for > > my taste): > > * maven-resolver-transport-classpath (CP transport, is not HTTP, just FTR) > > * maven-resolver-transport-file (file transport, is not HTTP, just FTR) > > * maven-resolver-transport-http (uses Apache HttpClient 4.x, HTTP/1.1 > > capable) > > * maven-resolver-transport-wagon (uses Wagon, so is not only HTTP, HTTP/1.1 > > capable) > > > > Is wagon something we still want to push forward ? > > > > > > And now the two new contenders: > > * Java11+ java.net.http.HttpClient based (HTTP/2 capable) > > * Java11+ Jetty12 based (HTTP/2 capable) > > > > So, the major question is how to name these modules (== artifactId)? > > > > * maven-resolver-transport-java11? > > * maven-resolver-transport-jetty12? > > > > Maybe some form of proto+imple? > > > > * maven-resolver-transport-http2-java11 (or shorter > > maven-resolver-transport-h2-java11) > > > > Http is enough imho. Which version is supported by which implementation is > an internal detail. Unless there are HTTP/2 server which does not support > HTTP/1.1 in which case it could become relevant. Or any client supporting > HTTP/2 and not HTTP/1.1... > > > > > * maven-resolver-transport-http2-jetty (or shorter > > maven-resolver-transport-h2-jetty) > >
agree on the no need of Jetty version. We should be able to use Jetty transport for http1 as well (the Jetty client can support multiple protocols including http3). maybe maven-resolver-transport-jetty (as it shouldn't have an http2 limitation) what will be the names to use in poms or cli to activate those transporters? Maybe we should keep them short to not have an extra long configuration esp when using cli. > > I like the longest better because they are more descriptive of what they > actually are. > So protocol + client sounds fine. > > > > > > But there are not ONLY HTTP/2 (they are also HTTP/1.1 capable as well). > > Also, the Jetty version matters, so once in future there will be Jetty13 > > etc... > > > > Do we really care ? We need different providers if they provide different > things. I don't think jetty 12 provides anything different than jetty 13. > In addition, we won't be able to ship both jetty 12 and jetty 13 at the > same time, so I think we can keep a single one, which means we can drop the > version. > Which version we ship is a separate discussion and it impacts the runtime > JDK requirements I suppose. > > Same for java11, maybe jdk would be better to indicate this is the http > client from the jdk (if you're using jdk 17, that one will be used, not the > one from jdk 11). I do understand it has been introduced in JDK 11, but > still... > > So in short, i'd go for: > maven-resolver-transport-http-jetty > maven-resolver-transport-http-jdk > maven-resolver-transport-http-httpclient > maven-resolver-transport-file > maven-resolver-transport-classpath > > Cheers > Guillaume > > > > > > > Ideas welcome. > > > > Thanks > > T > > > > PS: Given java.net.http.HttpClient based transport will be dependency-less, > > it reminds me of good old wagon-http-lightweight, but unlike wagon one > > (that was quite limited), this will be fully capable transport. > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
