Yeah, I got that more as I read more of the threads. Nonetheless, I thought it might be valuable to hear from a couple of users that were just talking about being about to use different implementations.
Thanks for the info though. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:34 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Replacing old Wagons in Maven 3.0 with the Jetty-client based Wagon On 12-Aug-09, at 5:37 PM, Jason Chaffee wrote: > It was just yesterday that I was just have a conversation with a > former colleague about wagon issues in 2.x and the difficulty in > switching out implementations. He was running into all kinds of > issues trying to do it and was not very happy about it. Also, this > is something I have mentioned on the this list in the past about one > of the things that I find annoying about maven. > > I know for a fact, that some people do care about switching and it > is a bigger populace than is given credit. > The discussion is really about what we want to support well versus pluggability. Pluggability is easier in 3.x and no work is going to be done on the sub-systems in 2.x to make that as flexible and we're moving to Guice anyway so Plexus is dead. So whoever makes implementations of the retriever or publisher you'll be able to switch more easily in 3.x. In the case of the components that actually come out of this project and the use cases we can reasonably support as an OSS project, I want to start severely constraining that because along with the component is maintenance, testing and documentation. I think we can reasonably support one flavor of each major component and do the necessary ancillary work. I think that will be the impetus for other to make good implementations of what they want instead of thinking all of our implementations, many of which just honestly aren't fully baked, are great. > > > Kind regards, > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brett > Porter > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:28 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Replacing old Wagons in Maven 3.0 with the Jetty-client > based Wagon > > > On 12/08/2009, at 8:10 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> >> On 12-Aug-09, at 3:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12/08/2009, at 5:58 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >>> >>>> John, >>> >>> Not John, but I like to think I do a good impression :) >>> >>>> >>>> What's the range of features across the two http Wagon's right now? >>> >>> They really don't do anything more than the underlying httpclient / >>> JDK implementations. HTTP Headers, connection timeout, and then any >>> parameters supported by HTTPClient in that version. >>> >>>> >>>> I assume in some cases we need the functionality of one versus the >>>> other so I would just like to improve the Jetty-client based Wagon >>>> and fix up what's required there, >>> >>> I assume you mean the existing mercury-wagon (and its mercury >>> deps), not a new wagon based on the underlying jetty http client? >>> >> >> Same thing. > > I'm talking about whether it will depend on mercury-core (and sat4j, > and commons-cli) or just jetty-client. (Or the other alternative to > pull out the mercury transport bits as a separate release). > > Note that the current mercury-wagon hasn't been updated to the latest > artifacts, I'm not even sure if it builds once updated. > >> >>>> add any functionality and toss the other two. >>> >>> shouldn't maven 3 equally support switching implementations and >>> instead choosing the new one as a default / only built-in / >>> supported impl? >>> >> >> No. I'll take one good with the same features. That's why I'm asking >> what's in both them. Users just want something that works, I doubt >> anyone cares about switching unless they run into the corner cases >> that force them to use one or the other. > > Presumably those users with edge cases exist since John went to all > that effort to make it happen in 2.2. I'm all for using the Jetty one > and I'm sure they'll fix up any edge cases as we go, but given how > well established the lightweight HTTP one is, it might still be worth > having that available to start with. My impression was that switching > would be easier out of the box in M3's classloading so it wouldn't be > a big deal. > >> >>>> I would like to have one good implementation and we can take >>>> advantage of the parallelization, PGP, and SSL support in the >>>> Jetty client. >>> >>> I'm still not convinced doing the PGP this low down in the stack is >>> a good idea, I'd prefer it got fixed up in the core artifact >>> handling so it could be configured from the core and used in scp, >>> etc. >>> >>> - Brett >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus >> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> believe nothing, no matter where you read it, >> or who has said it, >> not even if i have said it, >> unless it agrees with your own reason >> and your own common sense. >> >> -- Buddha >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E ---------------------------------------------------------- A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing. -- Alan Perlis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
