On 09/09/2007, at 1:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Not using Wagon, our abstraction, and directly focusing on HTTP.
Doesn't that mean adding a bunch of HTTP code, listeners, etc into the artifact code - and making two places to maintain something essentially the same, that doesn't really buy anything? What problem with Wagon are you trying to solve?
This is the opposite direction to what Maven 1.1 did - maybe the guys that worked on that could share their experience of whether it ended up better off or not?
I do remember one of the reasons I switched to Wagon there was because ftp:// was getting a number of bug reports. Not sure if anyone still uses ftp://, but I don't currently see a reason to remove it.
Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
