On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:35 AM, John Casey wrote: > On 8/3/10 2:21 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into Maven >> 3.x trunk. >> >> The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a while, >> and the second is the introduction of Aether which is our second attempt at >> a stand-alone repository API. The PMC is aware of Aether as Brian reported >> it in our quarterly report to the Apache Board, but other developers who are >> not on the PMC and the community in general might not know much about it. >> >> I just posted an entry giving a very high level description: >> >> http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/08/introducing-aether/ >> >> There is a resources section at the bottom of the post for those interested >> in the sources, issue tracking, wiki and mailing lists. As part of some of >> the research we are about to embark on with Daniel Le Berre, Aether will >> likely look more like p2 as time passes and as a final resting place the >> Eclipse Foundation is more likely then Apache. I know people will ask so I'm >> answering that now. Sonatype is just about to fully move Tycho over the >> Eclipse Foundation and we want to see how that goes. If that works, then >> M2Eclipse is next, and then Aether will follow. >> >> At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to >> release 3.0-beta-2. >> >> So please let us know if you have any objections. > > > There's too much in this thread that I this is a tad distracting from the > important points, so I'm replying to the top post. > > I _really_ appreciate all the work done in getting M3 into a usable form, and > in general I like the way Aether looks (I haven't had time to look into the > guice shim yet). I realize there are newer thoughts on repository design > since Maven took its swing at things, and we need to find a way to transition > forward..."transition" because we have a large legacy of artifacts already > under the Maven repository format. HOWEVER, there are a couple things here > I'm pretty deeply concerned about. > > > 1. The repository format is a Maven concept. I'd argue that it's one of > Maven's two great contributions to the world of software (the other being a > decent build tool). As such, the Maven community should have some role in > guiding the future of that format. > > If Maven relinquishes all ownership of the API and implementation for the > piece that resolves artifacts, then we have no say in the future design of > the repository Maven uses as its lifeblood. Many people who aren't Sonatype > people have spent time working on that de facto specification, and they've > shown the merit to earn a voice in guiding this API...at least, if it's going > to be billed as a Maven-compatible Repository API. > > > 2. Jason, you mentioned sponsoring a Sat4j developer to work with Sonatype in > the future to improve Aether. What effect is this likely to have on the > aether-api module? My concern here is that we're talking about releasing > Maven 3.0-beta-2 with a completely rewritten API / implementation for one of > the most pivotal parts of Maven. It's not that I don't trust Benjamin and > Kristian to produce high-quality code. >
Once the API is set for Aether it will be supported forever. Essentially the Eclipse way of supporting APIs. Just like we're supporting the old Artifact APIs now with Aether being the backing implementation. We're sensitive to external consumes. > What I'm actually worried about having Aether API drift AFTER we adopt it in > Maven. This will hamper anyone wishing to integrate with the Maven 3 core, > whether that's Maven plugin development or Maven embedding. > It can't drift. Whatever is in place needs to be supported, all the plugins that use the artifact resolution APIs as they stand here now still work with. > > What I'd actually prefer to see is the Aether API published in some neutral > location where we have an iron-clad guarantee that we won't be locked out of > its design. Then, put the implementations wherever you think is best. IMO the > key moving forward is to establish a standard API for resolving artifacts. > IMO, this is our great failure with Plexus, that we depended directly on a > container implementation, not on a container API. > > Having a stable set of specifications define their interaction with Maven > would make plugin development and embedding MUCH better. In fact, I think > establishing this practice might be the single best contribution we can make > to Maven in the near term. > > Thanks, > > -john > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea, >> so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second, >> the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints, >> as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might. >> >> -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander) >> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham
