On 8 Sep 07, at 2:56 PM 8 Sep 07, Brett Porter wrote:
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?
Making it stream, transactions, sessions. It's getting to
complicated, gets more complicated and veering off from it's
intention of being a simple transport. It doesn't need the notion of
mirrors, proxies, authorization it was simply intended to move files.
It buys us something small and focused, and avoid the generalities
which makes it cause problems in Maven.
Pick the two things people use: file:// and http:// and make them
work super well instead being mediocre.
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]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
