ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <ste...@apache.org>
Subject Re: repository
Date Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:08:44 GMT
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:36:25 -0500, Russell Gold <russgold@gmail.com> wrote:
 > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:32:12 +0000, Steve Loughran 
<stevel@apache.org> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:32:52 -0500, Russell Gold <russgold@gmail.com>
 > > > That is why I like the maven-style cache. It
 > > > defines an unambiguous name for the cache and unambiguous names for
 > > > each of the files in it. Sharing is then automatic and guaranteed.
 > >
 > > yes, but you also have to worry about file locking.
 > >
 > > If we adopt a common cache then we need to change the update to 
download
 > > to a file with a .part extension, then rename on success.
 >
 > Sounds like overkill to me (individual users rarely build two projects
 > so simultaneously that the scenario is ever likely to arise.
 >

you dont have a work cruise control server building 5+ projects do you?

Saving files to the side of the main one is important in caching as

(a) the download could take some time over a slow link, so the window of 
the race is quite big
(b) if the download failed half-way, you'd break not only the build you 
were running, but every other build on the system.

I rest my case. Even if (a) isnt an issue for you, (b) could be.


 > > will be the default policy
 > >
 > > > - use the ibiblio repository for downloads
 > >
 > > is if you say <mavenrepository>
 >
 > Why even require it?

no good reason either way, 'cept it makes it explicit where the stuff 
comes from.

 >
 > > > On the other hand, perhaps the special version "LATEST" should
 > > > override that behavior and say that the task should try to pick
 > > > whatever version is the latest, and compare its times. This is more
 > > > common in at least some styles of internal development, where version
 > > > numbers don't make as much sense.
 > >
 > > Exactly. With the changed policy timestamps wont be relevant unless you
 > > ask for them.
 > >
 > > I think its this use case why I'm worried about the cache too; LATEST
 > > there scares me, even though its a wonderful technique (right up to the
 > > moment you try and field a bugrep and all you know is they had LATEST
 > > versions).
 >
 > I had assumed that this was your goal. I suspect I still don't
 > understand your use case. I never use LATEST myself, insisting on
 > actual named releases as dependencies. But if you are not interested
 > in LATEST - why do you ever care about timestamps? The code becomes
 > *much* simpler if you ignore them.

Like I said, I will change default behaviour to only fetch missing stuff.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message