On 19/06/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah thanks, I wasn't aware of that - I had assumed archiva used
> dependency-tree, although I haven't got around to looking at archiva
> yet. That certainly looks like the kind of code I was heading towards
> - I'll have a proper look and get back to you. I'm just wondering how
> it could be more accurate than the resolution process that Maven core
> uses itself?
what would be the point of having a different resolution than the one
maven uses? If I see a dependency graph different of what maven uses
it would be really confusing
I agree, this is what I was trying to say.
other than that let's just choose one of the libraries and deprecate
the other one to avoid splitting the work
archiva-dependency-graph appears to be quite tied in to archiva
itself, so I'm not sure how easy it'd be to move away from that. The
situation so far appears to be:
- maven-dependency-tree uses the 2.0.x core APIs to build the same
tree as Maven actually uses
- archiva-dependency-graph is a good proof-of-concept of how
graph-based resolution could be implemented in 2.1, although is
currently quite tied to archiva itself
- Jason has some code for graph-based resolution in 2.1, which will
supersede and replace the need for maven-dependency-tree
I believe maven-dependency-tree is still relevant for 2.0.x and I will
continue to work on it since that's the version I'm targeting. Once
the spec and implementation is done for 2.1, it should be very easy to
move these diagnostic tools over to use that instead.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
