Hi Joakim,

On 19/06/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note, Archiva couldn't use the DependencyTree component, as it made
assumptions about repository access, availability, search order, and
layout that simply were not true. (actually, this is a problem mostly in
maven/components, but it still affected Archiva).

So, we wrote our own dependency graph / tree routines.  It's more
flexible, more reliable, faster, uses less memory, and more accurate
than the ones in maven components (and the shared dependency tree
component too).  I even utilized a local version of select classes from
plexus-graph (that Jason wants to eventually use for dependency management).

Check it out: archiva-dependency-graph
[snip]

Ah thanks, I wasn't aware of that - I had assumed archiva used
dependency-tree, although I haven't got around to looking at archiva
yet.  That certainly looks like the kind of code I was heading towards
- I'll have a proper look and get back to you.  I'm just wondering how
it could be more accurate than the resolution process that Maven core
uses itself?

I welcome you to look at it as a potential PoC for dependency handling
in maven 2.1.

It needs better non-javadoc documentation, but that'll come.

Cool.  Jason was talking about committing some artifact resolution
code this weekend, so hopefully we can start to converge these efforts
towards 2.1.

BTW. I wrote a VersionComparator that uses logic version sorting too in
Archiva.  I didn't realize it was a tough thing to do, until I read
Kenney's email about versioning
<http://www.nabble.com/versioning-tf2842865s177.html#a7938087>.

Check it out: VersionComparator.java
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/archiva/trunk/archiva-base/archiva-common/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiva/common/utils/VersionComparator.java>

Nice, I'd definitely like to see Kenney's versioning become the default.

Cheers,

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to