On 9 Sep 07, at 2:46 AM 9 Sep 07, Mauro Talevi wrote:
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?
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.
I tend to agree with Brett. IMO, an abstraction is in general a
good thing, if nothing else because it abstracts the dependency on
the library performing the task (eg in this case commons-httpclient).
And if already in place the motivation to remove it has to be very
strong.
In this case I think the abstraction being neglected hasn't bought us
much. And that a more focused approach on what's most commonly used
will give the real chance to improve the instabilities we have and
give people an easier chance of understanding the codebase without
having to rifle through all the abstractions.
I agree that abstractions are good if they are done correctly. If Joe
Walnes writes an abstraction, I'll use it :-)
If anything, the abstraction focus can be improved.
Honestly, take a look at Wagon and see how much of it you understand
easily. For pulling I think it lacks many things critical features
like transactions, and connection pooling. And it's model for
deployment in not being able to take a whole intact release and
placing it safely into a remote repository is simply bad.
Since polling and deployment have different requirements, the
abstraction can be fine tuned to suit each use case. Polling could
only support http and file protocols and we could drop the others.
I think we definitely need to focus on this in maven-artifact.
Deployment simply not atomic which is bad.
But this is all very generic thought. I need to dig in and get a
better knowledge of the wagon layer.
Go for it.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
