maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian E. Fox" <>
Subject RE: Wagon changes and WebDAV
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:24:45 GMT
Hrm, if it allows overrides and still works for deploy:deploy-file, this
might be the safest approach.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Casey [] 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV

Here's a question:

Could we specify the wagon-webdav in the super-POM as a build  
extension? Even if there are no project POMs in the current build,  
the super POM should be built, right? Also, I would think (though I'd  
have to investigate to be sure) that respecifying the wagon-webdav  
build extension with a new version would override through  
inheritance, working similarly to the way the pinned-down plugin  
stuff is meant to work.

Obviously, the webdav stuff as it is today may not be a great  
candidate for this sort of inclusion, but maybe this would be a  
decent approach for the next release.

I'm still reading through this thread, but this just occurred to me  
and I wanted to bring it up.


On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:

>> The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when
>> we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new
>> version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider  
>> and
>> all its deps, or make your own shaded JAR which would be a pain in  
>> the
>> ass.
> (see full thread here:
> So the above captures exactly the problem we are seeing now. James has
> an issue with webdav that may require a fix. This is probably an
> existing issue and is not core so it shouldn't hold up the 2.0.9
> release. The issue is that even if he finds and fixes it, there's  
> no way
> to upgrade the extension until we do 2.0.10. This seems like it  
> could be
> a bigger issue than what we've tried to solve, which is make
> deploy:deploy-file slightly easier to use for one specific protocol.
> Reading back over the thread, there seemed to be general consensus  
> that
> this isn't the direction we wanted to go with the trunk, but that  
> 2.0.x
> wasn't as much of a concern. I think it should be still a concern  
> given
> the potential to really lock people in. Furthermore this has a big
> potential to cause regressions because now we just forced everyone to
> upgrade their webdav even if they didn't want to...and there's nothing
> they can do about it. That's not cool and I vote we take this out  
> before
> minting 2.0.9. (I'm leaving it in for RC4 to allow time for discussion
> and time for more testing of the RC)
> --Brian
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

John Casey
Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message