I cannot imagine a use case where you would check that artifact exists
in the remote repository and then don't download it. Can you?
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Is there never a case that you care if it's there but don't want to download
it? It seems like the efficiency is in how it's used, rather than the fact that
it exists.
-----Original Message-----
From: Oleg Gusakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:33 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: wagon's resourceExists() call efficiency ?
wagon API has a very strange method in it: resourceExists(). And
although it is optional -
org.apache.maven.integrationtests.MavenITmng3703ExecutionProjectWithRelativePathsTest.testForkFromReport()
fails if that method is not present.
Jan and I have been weighting pro and contra of this method in the
Mercury transport API and decided against it as we cannot see where it
gives any advantage over direct GET resource. Indeed - if read resource
fails, it's that same as resourceExists() fails. If read succeeds, then
it's equivalent to sequence: resourceExists(); readResource(); But the
latter has a way more network roundtrips compared to just readResource().
I propose to rewrite the integration test so that it does not fail, if
(optional!) Wagon.resourceExists() is not present. Thus we can avoid
rather costly resourceExists().
Thanks,
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
