desruisseaux commented on code in PR #2198:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/2198#discussion_r4241732078
##########
maven-resolver-impl/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/internal/impl/DefaultInstaller.java:
##########
@@ -205,7 +214,22 @@ private void install(RepositorySystemSession session,
RequestTrace trace, Artifa
throw new IllegalStateException("cannot install " + dstPath +
" to same path");
}
- pathProcessor.copyWithTimestamp(srcPath, dstPath);
+ if (hardLink) {
+ Files.createDirectories(dstPath.getParent());
+ if (Files.isDirectory(dstPath)) {
+ throw new IOException("destination is a directory: " +
dstPath);
+ }
+ try {
+ Files.deleteIfExists(dstPath);
+ Files.createLink(dstPath, srcPath);
+ } catch (UnsupportedOperationException |
IllegalArgumentException | IOException e) {
+ // cross-device link (EXDEV), provider mismatch (e.g.
Jimfs), or unsupported FS — fall back to copy
+ logger.warn("Hard link not supported for {}, falling back
to copy: {}", dstPath, e.getMessage());
+ pathProcessor.copyWithTimestamp(srcPath, dstPath);
+ }
Review Comment:
Should this block be moved to `PathProcessor` for consistency with
`copyWithTimestamp` method?
Note: I don't think that the level of abstraction of `PathProcessor` (with a
separation between an interface and a single implementation class with no use
case I could see for more classes) is necessary. I would suggest to retrofit
`PathProcessorSupport` into `PathProcessor`, but this is another story.
--
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]
