On 20-May-08, at 9:17 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:

I agree a single provider is less confusing. What if jackrabbit is the trunk and we make slide a branch? If the api hasn't changed, then it should be ok.


It's not the API that matters, that has to be the same. It's the way it behaves. You lose nothing have two providers and not changing the way everyone uses it now while having the option to use something new. You have no idea what the behavior may, or may not, push on to users of WebDAV. Just avoid the potential problem of calling it the same thing, finding out there is a problem, trying to roll it back, and by some weirdism in maven-artifact users get the wrong provider. Don't make it more complicated then it has to be. People can choose the new implementation when they want.

We have enough problems with users complaining about the auto-magical update. Do we really want to explain "Oh we called it the same thing but we completely changed the implementation while it was in beta."

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nathan Beyer
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:26 AM
To: wagon-dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: webdav wagon changes

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]



Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.

-- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to