Is there never a case that you care if it's there but don't want to download it? It seems like the efficiency is in how it's used, rather than the fact that it exists.
-----Original Message----- From: Oleg Gusakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:33 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: wagon's resourceExists() call efficiency ? wagon API has a very strange method in it: resourceExists(). And although it is optional - org.apache.maven.integrationtests.MavenITmng3703ExecutionProjectWithRelativePathsTest.testForkFromReport() fails if that method is not present. Jan and I have been weighting pro and contra of this method in the Mercury transport API and decided against it as we cannot see where it gives any advantage over direct GET resource. Indeed - if read resource fails, it's that same as resourceExists() fails. If read succeeds, then it's equivalent to sequence: resourceExists(); readResource(); But the latter has a way more network roundtrips compared to just readResource(). I propose to rewrite the integration test so that it does not fail, if (optional!) Wagon.resourceExists() is not present. Thus we can avoid rather costly resourceExists(). Thanks, Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
