ArchivaArtifactConsumer is an abstract-dealing-with-artifacts consumer.
RepositoryContentConsumer is for files.
A file that isn't an artifact can be *.xml, *.sha1, *.md5,
maven-metadata.xml, bad content, poorly named content, etc.
Would it be better to state the phase/scan instead?
RepositoryContentConsumer becomes -> RepositoryScanConsumer
ArchivaArtifactConsumer becomes -> DatabaseScanConsumer
And I would rather make this change now (yes Brett, I see you there) and
not have to deal with backwards compatibility issues post 1.0 "in the
wild". This time (right now) is the best time to make this change.
After the 1.0 release is just going to add misery and pain to this
process. Now is the sweet spot. We could make the change post 1.0 but
it wouldn't be a change, it would just be another band-aide. Make the
change now. Did you know that making the change now would take less
than an hour, including testing. I think that Now is a good time. Now
is the winter of our discontent. Right now, hey, its your tomorrow.
Right now, C'mon (Brett), its everything. Right now, catch a magic
moment, do it, right here and now. It means everything. Its right now,
oh, tell me what are you waiting for, turn this thing around. :-)
Wendy Smoak wrote:
I'm looking at...
http://maven.apache.org/archiva/ref/latest/apidocs/org/apache/maven/archiva/consumers/package-summary.html
What's the difference between ArchivaArtifactConsumer and
RepositoryContentConsumer? (When is an artifact not considered
repository content?)
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Software (OSS) Developer
