Hrm, if it allows overrides and still works for deploy:deploy-file, this might be the safest approach.
-----Original Message----- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:04 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV Here's a question: Could we specify the wagon-webdav in the super-POM as a build extension? Even if there are no project POMs in the current build, the super POM should be built, right? Also, I would think (though I'd have to investigate to be sure) that respecifying the wagon-webdav build extension with a new version would override through inheritance, working similarly to the way the pinned-down plugin stuff is meant to work. Obviously, the webdav stuff as it is today may not be a great candidate for this sort of inclusion, but maybe this would be a decent approach for the next release. I'm still reading through this thread, but this just occurred to me and I wanted to bring it up. -john On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: > >> The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when >> we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new >> version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider >> and > >> all its deps, or make your own shaded JAR which would be a pain in >> the > >> ass. > > (see full thread here: > http://www.nabble.com/Wagon-changes-and-WebDAV-td15743343s177.html) > > So the above captures exactly the problem we are seeing now. James has > an issue with webdav that may require a fix. This is probably an > existing issue and is not core so it shouldn't hold up the 2.0.9 > release. The issue is that even if he finds and fixes it, there's > no way > to upgrade the extension until we do 2.0.10. This seems like it > could be > a bigger issue than what we've tried to solve, which is make > deploy:deploy-file slightly easier to use for one specific protocol. > > Reading back over the thread, there seemed to be general consensus > that > this isn't the direction we wanted to go with the trunk, but that > 2.0.x > wasn't as much of a concern. I think it should be still a concern > given > the potential to really lock people in. Furthermore this has a big > potential to cause regressions because now we just forced everyone to > upgrade their webdav even if they didn't want to...and there's nothing > they can do about it. That's not cool and I vote we take this out > before > minting 2.0.9. (I'm leaving it in for RC4 to allow time for discussion > and time for more testing of the RC) > > --Brian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
