On 21 Jun 07, at 6:18 PM 21 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 22/06/2007, at 1:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't think this makes sense to add to 2.0.x as we have to 1)
provide a way to load these strategies which is taken care of in
2.1, and 2) people will implement them in 2.0.x and then expect
them to work in 2.1 which they won't because it will be graph-
based in 2.1.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think the intention of this
patch is to allow other people to plug in their own, but simply
allowing them to use alternatives we've provided. The pluggable
part certainly needs to come later.
What alternative have we ever provided?
How would anyone select a different strategy? This would require a
change to the POM to even turn on any alternatives. Even if the API
for the resolution was completely hidden something fundamental would
have to change i.e. the POM in order to activate it. No?
If that's the case, I don't understand why conflict resolution is
incompatible with being graph based. You still need to make
decisions at the graph nodes, and the same strategies probably apply.
It's not incompatible at all but it will work completely differently
with a graph then what's currently there.
I think everyone agrees that will happen.
I don't think we can agree on anything yet, because we haven't
formed a proposal.
There are a huge number of details but I don't think any disagrees
that nothing works unless you start with a graph. It's impossible to
do anything correctly without that.
In the few discussions that have happened so far it's clear we're
not coming from a common understanding. You said you had something
like 6 pages written over a month ago - I think seeing them even in
draft form would help us at least be on the same page.
Does anyone disagree we need a graph? I don't think anyone does and
given that conflict resolution becomes a graph traversal not tweaking
via a peephole.
API exposure, and mechanism for loading the strategies are
problems. I don't think it would be wise to promote this at this
point in 2.0.x.
I'd actually like to see this committed to trunk. It would give
people the option to see it in action, and it would mean the future
solution must be at least as functional. I'm not really big on
adding features to 2.0.x either, as I've said before.
If anyone disagrees about using a graph then anything can go in trunk
but at a fundamental level I have not seen anything dispute the need
for a graph-based approach including yourself. You cannot do conflict
resolution properly without a graph.
Mark, would this suit you?
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
