I think it would be helpful if two JIRA tickets were created for the separate integrations. This way, people can track and report back on any issues they find -- plus know what release it planned for. I, being a bystander who watches the development, I did not know these two things were planned.
Paul On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > > > > > On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > > > >> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a > >> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases > >> won't hurt anyone. > >> > >> Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a > >> vote, I'll test, verify and vote accordingly, regardless of if it's > >> beta2 with or without Aether/Guice. I would just rather see one > >> sooner rather then later. We too often have a tendency of waiting for > >> everything to be perfect. They are betas, pick one and stage it I say. > > > > +1 to that > > > > Not to extend the thread too much further, but I'd still like to see > someone answer my questions about the impact of changing the project's scope > by moving the artifact implementation to Aether before that lands anyway. > We've had a lot more time to ponder Guice. > > > > 1) is there any alternative that would keep what we have today - the > Maven implementation and API for Maven plugin developers - within the Maven > project, while still allowing Jason's desire to involve more people in an > expanded effort? > > > > The current Plugin API is not changed at all. We didn't change any of the > plugin code. No impact on plugin developers. A new API is a different story > and that will be far more powerful with JSR330 and Aether. > > No one is going to work on the Maven implementation, that is clear from the > sheer lack of neglect over the last 3 years. No one is magically going to > start working on this. That much is clear. > > > 2) either way, what API are we expecting plugin developers to use for > artifact resolution in Maven 3? > > They can use what exists now. We didn't alter any plugins. I imagine we > will have to support the old API forever. > > > If it is Aether, what is the impact to plugin developers if the > interfaces change after 3.0 > > Pretty much zero, plugins that exist today run without change. There are a > couple gotchas but nothing major. > > > , or if it moves to Eclipse (or even back to Apache) and changes > packaging again? > > > > Aether is the library, and what should happen to prevent API leakage is > that if a new Plugin API is developed that it prevent leakage this time and > nothing will be couched in terms of Aether directly. That was a mistake with > the current code and with Wagon. What is used now in terms of API we've > tried to support to the best of our ability and there's no reason it can't > remain indefinitely. Any new JSR330-based API for plugins should attempt to > prevent API leakage. > > > I'm still having trouble understanding the dichotomy between an project > intended to evolve rapidly, and wanting to include that in a project > (hopefully) nearing release which will be used for years. > > > > You do it by maintaining APIs which we have attempted to do. > > > Thanks, > > Brett > > > > -- > > Brett Porter > > br...@apache.org > > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > We know what we are, but know not what we may be. > > -- Shakespeare > > > >
