Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 20 Jun 07, at 10:13 AM 20 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
Be sure that this doesn't break forward compatibility too.
That approach would not allow for proper mirroring, authentication
propagation, network proxy usage, and short-circuits the whole wagon
manager approach of wagon 2.x
Why is there any concept of mirroring in Wagon.
You are basically deciding all this stuff on your own and making
changes based on what you need in Archiva.
That's nice.
But there's no mirroring in Archiva. Nor is there any need for it.
Archiva actually uses wagon 1.x, not wagon 2.x or the wagon-manager.
There's pretty much zero discussion surrounding all the changes you
are making and if you expect that to be absorbed into Maven you're
going to have a hard sell after what happened the last time it was
attempted. If the APIs are not compatible while the code is improved I
will be -1 on its inclusion in any version of Maven. There is no
reason the changes cannot be more gradual, and made to work with 1.x,
2.0.x, 2.1.x.
Zero? Hardly.
The discussion for those changes were made in irc a full 5+ months ago.
Regrettably it was not discussed in an archived format, like here in the
mailing list.
We've all got this disease. We all have to resolve to change this behavior.
I'm honestly not in favor of using something so divergent as it's
being driven by the use of one application, we'll have a hard time
getting it to work right in Maven and we're going to very much screw
Maven 1.x because we're yet again going to change/fix everything on
something completely different then what they using. This is
especially important now that Maven 1.1 is imminent.
The decision was made to ...
a) Consolidate the myriad of usages for wagon into a single point.
b) Not duplicate code within maven client + wagon + plugins to
accomplish the same task.
c) Give everyone a consistent interface, to get the full benefits of
authentication + mirroring + network proxying (which currently is
implemented differently with every usage of wagon)
d) Fix the numerous bugs present in wagon.
Direct usage of the wagon, not through the wagon manager, means a lot
less functionality than desired.
This is what Wagon was made for which is why the WagonManager was
always in Maven itself. The manager capability is nice, I agree, but
is not of prime importance in Wagon. The prime important is a simple
API for transport that works well for each of the providers. I fear
the API is going to get out of control like many of our other APIs
because the complexity of having this to work in something like
Archiva is going to pull in another kitchen sink.
I never proposed eliminating the direct wagon impl usage / use case.
Just make everyone that decides to use it that way aware that they have
*MORE* work ahead of themselves in order to be consistent with wagon
usage everywhere else in maven client.
- Joakim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
