Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 jvanzyl@sonatype.com)
Message-Id: <61C8F456-3410-45AE-ACF9-3208CBACB9BB@sonatype.com>
From: Jason van Zyl <jvanzyl@sonatype.com>
To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <E196F253-86D3-4488-8564-AD63155F9C11@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Replacing old Wagons in Maven 3.0 with the Jetty-client based
 Wagon
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:10:24 -0700
References: <8184DCBC-2CA1-4A21-AFA2-74E714CB1D43@sonatype.com>
 <E196F253-86D3-4488-8564-AD63155F9C11@apache.org>


On 12-Aug-09, at 3:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

>
> On 12/08/2009, at 5:58 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> John,
>
> Not John, but I like to think I do a good impression :)
>
>>
>> What's the range of features across the two http Wagon's right now?
>
> They really don't do anything more than the underlying httpclient /  
> JDK implementations. HTTP Headers, connection timeout, and then any  
> parameters supported by HTTPClient in that version.
>
>>
>> I assume in some cases we need the functionality of one versus the  
>> other so I would just like to improve the Jetty-client based Wagon  
>> and fix up what's required there,
>
> I assume you mean the existing mercury-wagon (and its mercury deps),  
> not a new wagon based on the underlying jetty http client?
>

Same thing.

>> add any functionality and toss the other two.
>
> shouldn't maven 3 equally support switching implementations and  
> instead choosing the new one as a default / only built-in /  
> supported impl?
>

No. I'll take one good with the same features. That's why I'm asking  
what's in both them. Users just want something that works, I doubt  
anyone cares about switching unless they run into the corner cases  
that force them to use one or the other.

>> I would like to have one good implementation and we can take  
>> advantage of the parallelization, PGP, and SSL support in the Jetty  
>> client.
>
> I'm still not convinced doing the PGP this low down in the stack is  
> a good idea, I'd prefer it got fixed up in the core artifact  
> handling so it could be configured from the core and used in scp, etc.
>
> - Brett
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------

believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.

  -- Buddha


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