I'd prefer a single 'webdav' provider. If there are concerns of passivity or correctness, then I'd suggest a call out for help testing it, which could identify any possible regressions. The slide-impl is pretty bad and I'd be willing to live and work through any bumps for a long-term win.
If there's a SNAPSHOT or a way of building one and some quick instructions on how to replace the slide impl in 2.0.9, I'd certainly be able to start some larger-scale integration testing. -Nathan On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished some work to migrate the webdav provider from slide to > jackrabbit using the patch from James Dumay. Slide leaked some file handles > and is an unsupported project. In the process I added some more tests around > transfer listeners as some providers weren't registering them correctly. > > Jason suggested on IRC that it might be better to retain the slide webdav > provider as-is and move the new code to wagon-webdav-jackrabbit. > > Any opinions on this before I go ahead and do that? > > I'm thinking of still renaming the slide wagon to wagon-webdav-slide in > such a case, so that on upgrading the version they are forced to choose, but > still have access to the slide one if needed. > > The only issue I can see is it clashing with the other one built in to > 2.0.9 for the plexus 'dav' component, but I haven't tried to see if it wins > out correctly if used. > > BTW, I've also brought the SCM provider in to trunk from the sandbox - it's > apparent from JIRA that a number of people are using it, so I think we > should support it for the limited use cases it currently supports. > > Cheers, > Brett > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
