Brett Porter wrote:
On 09/09/2007, at 1:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Not using Wagon, our abstraction, and directly focusing on HTTP.
Doesn't that mean adding a bunch of HTTP code, listeners, etc into the
artifact code - and making two places to maintain something essentially
the same, that doesn't really buy anything? What problem with Wagon are
you trying to solve?
This is the opposite direction to what Maven 1.1 did - maybe the guys
that worked on that could share their experience of whether it ended up
better off or not?
I do remember one of the reasons I switched to Wagon there was because
ftp:// was getting a number of bug reports. Not sure if anyone still
uses ftp://, but I don't currently see a reason to remove it.
I tend to agree with Brett. IMO, an abstraction is in general a good thing, if nothing else because
it abstracts the dependency on the library performing the task (eg in this case commons-httpclient).
And if already in place the motivation to remove it has to be very strong.
If anything, the abstraction focus can be improved. Since polling and deployment have different
requirements, the abstraction can be fine tuned to suit each use case. Polling could only support
http and file protocols and we could drop the others.
But this is all very generic thought. I need to dig in and get a better
knowledge of the wagon layer.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
