tiagobento commented on PR #578: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/578#issuecomment-2356446794
> And as for symlinking (as hardlinking fails on Windows for some reason), it may work and save disk space (with all the shortcomings already mentioned, like all the plugins should be able to handle symlinks in local repo) but speed wise it may not be huge boost, since as I said, "file" transport is remote transport, and hence, checksumming (and in future, things like signature validation) is must and expected. Got it. Makes total sense. I guess the only real performance gain then would be in not having to actually move bits around and write them as new files. Hard to say if it's worth it to have it or not, though. --- As for all the complexity in managing deprecations and having people actually act on using the new stuff, I can only imagine how careful the considerations must be to change/evolve something so widely used like Maven, especially in a foundational part like Resolver. If I may, I guess the simple-enough repository structure and mental model that Maven has for dealing with dependencies kind of encourages people to endeavor a little more on its internals (i.e. "How hard can it be?" 😅), extending it in ways that seem safe but have all sorts of evolution and compatibility problems.. But that's just my limited perspective on it as a user 😝 I'm glad to hear that Maven4 will try and address some of those issues! I'm looking forward for the first stable release. --- In the mean time, I couldn't let it go with the Quarkus Maven Plugin and... I got it working. I'm pretty sure this is not the whole thing, but at least my immediate problem was solved by this little patch: https://github.com/tiagobento/quarkus/commit/86a25e0fc66756304716eab15764ca088529074b I did it against the 3.8.4 tag (because that's what I'm using in my project, currently), but I'll try and send a PR targeting the latest stream. Hopefully I can get it to be part of a future patch release on the next LTS coming up alter this month (3.15). @cstamas Thank you _so much_ for pointing out that the CLRM mechanism exists. It may be the final missing piece on this whole thing I'm trying to do. --- As for the symlinks, I guess my need would be a lot less latent now that I understand the gains may not be as great as I initially imagined. Of course, if you want to continue pursuing the feasibility of both symbolic and hard links, I'll be available for helping you test it if you need it! -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
