On 28-Feb-08, at 2:06 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 8:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Dynamic collections have been there for a while. And why is
deploy:deploy-file a concern, and for webdav. This will be the case
for all providers. FTP deploy doesn't work out of the box either,
should be start adding everything because they need a POM to use
deploy file with FTP. Probably not.
It's just purely demand based thing. As you said last year "Sure,
why not drop it in. I think people use it quite a bit. "
I did try it for a client and created other huge problems due to the
commons-* chain. Not so good all that stuff that is so commonly used
getting tossed in there.
The other issue is why isn't just plain PUT fine. I don't know how
it ever came to be that we pushed WebDAV.
For people running webdav repositories where PUT is not sufficient
because you have to create a whole bunch of directories first.
As I said before - that's fine, but it should be working before
the first alpha so that there's no regression in functionality.
It's never been there so it's not a regression because no one has
ever used it or done it.
I meant between 2.0.9 and 2.1, since you said it was fine to leave
it in 2.0.x.
If you need a POM to deploy-file that's fine. We're not going to
start pushing in all the providers so people can do this. Pushing
it all in the core, sprinkling the logic everywhere we need to
handle the JARs especially the httpclient mess of commons-* is not
very appealing.
I'm not really sure what you mean. It's all properly isolated now
and there was no code changes to make this happen other than the few
lines to add them to the filter, so I don't really see what the
problem is?
It's the dependency chain that caused problems. But you had 5
different commits changing pieces all over the place and we need to
move in the other direction having this all in one place. Better
classloader isolation like what is possible in 2.1 and ditching as
much from the core as possible in the default distribution.
I personally don't care, I use the lightweight http provider to
deploy to Archiva and it works just fine.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
