On 15 Aug 07, at 1:36 AM 15 Aug 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant by supercede. Nobody would use the
downloader any more.
Yes, I understood that part. The part I wasn't clear about is that
Jan's facade makes it far easier for someone to use the functionality
of the artifact resolution mechanism. Her facade does all the nasty
work of using the resolver, artifact factory, and anything else to
grab a set of dependencies for the runtime scope for example. It
could be expanded to shield people from the complexity of the
existing API. Jan's facade does this quite nicely. It would be the
starting point of making something easier for any external client to
use.
On 15/08/2007, at 7:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Aug 07, at 4:43 AM 13 Aug 07, Brett Porter wrote:
All looks good. My preference is to keep going with 2.1-SNAPSHOT
as the version (I've found in the past going backwards was found
to be confusing), but I'm not that worried either way.
I assume Jan's facade would supercede maven-downloader, so that
should be deprecated?
No, it would replace using the resolver directly. So it could
easily replace the downloader but give people access to what they
need 95% of the time without suffering the current API.
Cheers,
Brett
On 13/08/2007, at 12:38 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
There will be confusion no matter what we do and the current
name is the
most specific, might as well leave it. Dropping back to 1.0.0 is
good
since it's really a new thing. It will add to the group to help
distinguish that its new.
+1 to leaving the artifactId
+1 to the 1.0.0 version.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Maven Artifact
I have separated out maven-artifact into its own module here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/maven-artifact
I will attempt to use it in trunk mid week, and right now I have
change the groupId to org.apache.maven.artifact.
Do we need to change the name of the artifactId to prevent
confusion?
The groupId should prevent any dependency clashes, but the name
being
the same may cause some confusion. I was also going to drop the
version back to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT (start using major, minor, micro).
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]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
