Hey Brett, On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 15:20 +1100, Brett Porter wrote: > I don't have any objection to using commons-vfs, since I think it > covers much of what Wagon does anyway - as long as it does have all > the features needed.
Looks like we only use Http/Https, ssh and file Wagon's in archiva - commons-vfs so far looks like it hits the spot. > That said - I don't really see any reason this is difficult in Wagon - > and do believe Wagon should be usable outside Maven. I think streaming > is a perfectly sensible thing to add... I have a copy of Wagon checked out at the moment that works purely with streams but I ran into a few of issues: * Wagon's transfer even model relies on being able to pass the File object that is being transfered to the listener - if its a streaming the transfer events don't make any sense seeing that the consumer of Wagon would be doing all the reading/writing * There are about three different ssh/scp Wagon implementations that can only deal with files. For example, there is a Wagon provider that will use the systems scp executable to upload/download files I really don't see the value in having to ditch Wagon implementations. > Regardless, I certainly don't want to see *another* transport layer, > or lose something like remote file:// repositories :) I understand your concern - I don't want to add yet another framework to Archiva. All we need is a simple module to allow us to get files from remote locations (http and ssh) and from the local file system. > Does that make sense? Perfectly :) James
