On 22/06/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think the intention of this patch is to allow other people to plug in their own, but simply allowing them to use alternatives we've provided. The pluggable part certainly needs to come later.
Yep, and in 2.0.x it's only configurable by adding an extension to the Maven installation. I'm sure users that undertake this will be happy to accept the caveats that this involves.
If that's the case, I don't understand why conflict resolution is incompatible with being graph based. You still need to make decisions at the graph nodes, and the same strategies probably apply.
Yep, they will still be required, although it's quite likely that they will implemented using a different API. [snip]
I'd actually like to see this committed to trunk. It would give people the option to see it in action, and it would mean the future solution must be at least as functional. I'm not really big on adding features to 2.0.x either, as I've said before.
I certainly agree with committing to trunk, and then it can be superseded as and when the new code is ready. I really can't see any harm in committing to 2.0.x though, removing hardcoded assumptions can only be good.
Mark, would this suit you?
I really need it in 2.0.x since I can't justify moving the development team onto a pre-alpha 2.1. We took a big leap of faith from 1.x to 2.0 when the first alpha came out and lost a lot of time due to teething issues. We're now enjoying the stability of 2.0.x and loath to repeat the process. Cheers, Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
