maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
Subject Re: The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
Date Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:29:20 GMT
I would like if someone would volunteer to do the documentation part of the release. This will
probably be the 3rd time I've merged Eclipse Aether into Maven and there are a lot of moving
parts that need to be tested and frankly it's starting to burn me out. I don't have time or
interest in using the Subversion-based documentation system so I'd like someone else to do
that. Do we really have no choice in how we publish our site? Checking stuff into SVN for
documentation seems arcane and ridiculous. I don't mind doing the technical work, I would
like someone else to pickup the documentation work for the release. Can someone help with
that?

On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:

> Any other comments?
> 
> Unless I hear otherwise this week I'll start merging Eclipse Aether into master and start
a discussion about what that means.
> 
> On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net> wrote:
> 
>> Personally I would like us to stick with the initial discussion of shipping
>> 3.1 with the slf4j usage (and slf4j-simple). That's what we've discussed
>> and talked about for some time so it would be great to get that out of the
>> door. The we could discuss the next step. Basically, and generally, I'd
>> like us to stick to the plans we discuss.
>> 
>> At the same time I fully appreciate that I'm not doing the work.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Mirko Friedenhagen
>> <mfriedenhagen@gmail.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> Well at least with Maven 4.0 I would not get the question anymore, why the
>>> pom's model version is at 4 while we use Maven 3 ;-).
>>> 
>>> Regards Mirko
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> On Mar 9, 2013 12:15 AM, "Brian Fox" <brianf@infinity.nu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I don't think we should move to 4.0 because of this. The primary consumer
>>>> of our systems are the end users and this change doesn't represent "api"
>>>> breakage to them. If we make what appears to be such a large version
>>>> change, that could scare off or confuse people who are just now warming
>>> up
>>>> to 3.x. I think this does need to be resolved, but lets just call it 3.1
>>>> and notify the plugins that need to know directly.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2013/3/4 Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>:
>>>>>>> some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there
was
>>> an
>>>>> argument
>>>>>>> for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API will
be more
>>>>> generic
>>>>>>> to cover other dependency resolution mecanisms and repository
>>> formats,
>>>>> like
>>>>>>> P2". Is there something done on this area (be it P2 or anyhting
else
>>>>> outside
>>>>>>> Maven use)?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - about maintaining a 3.1.0 bugfix branch like the actual one
in
>>>>> parallel with
>>>>>>> the master incorporating Eclipse Aether: isn't it the area where
the
>>>>> git move
>>>>>>> was expected to help? The 3.1.0 is just a bugfix branch, without
>>> much
>>>>> commits
>>>>>>> expected since the work will happen on master (and on every
>>>>> components/plugins
>>>>>>> having an impact from Eclipse Aether integration), or do I miss
>>>>> something?
>>>>>>> I suppose these outside component will require some time to adapt
>>> and
>>>>> propose
>>>>>>> a solution for users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In such case why not using the opportunity of 4.0.0 to back to a
>>>>>> org.apache.maven namespace (with a wrapper on top of the real
>>>>>> implementation).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Go for it. As I wrote previously if anyone wants to make a shim or
>>>>> compatibility layer over Eclipse Aether they are welcome too. I'm not
>>>> doing
>>>>> for all the reasons I cited previously, but feel free to take the
>>>>> opportunity.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> At least that will be a more stable namespace. (If did as it since
>>> the
>>>>>> beginning we could think about something else now !)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 19:24:23 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Stephen,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter where the code is. It's complicated, takes
a lot
>>> of
>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> to understand and I don't really care, or see it as a problem
that
>>>>> Benjamin
>>>>>>>> is the one who works on it most. No one else worked on here,
no one
>>>>> else is
>>>>>>>> working on it there. It's not where it is, it's that it's
a
>>>> non-trivial
>>>>>>>> body of code that requires focus and effort that any casual
>>> observer
>>>>>>>> doesn't have the time for. The only people who have ever
worked on
>>> it
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> those that were employed to work on it specifically. I don't
see
>>> this
>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>> issue, it's simply the way it is.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Aether is already exposed and it's because the Maven Artifact
APIs
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> anemic that it's used directly. Aether is complete, anything
else
>>>> made
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> just going to make a huge wrapper around that which serves
no
>>> purpose
>>>>>>>> really. If in the 18 months since Aether has been at Eclipse
>>> nothing
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> been done do you really think anything can be made in a timely
>>>>> fashion? I
>>>>>>>> think that unlikely. There's probably 1000 man hours in Aether
at
>>>>> least and
>>>>>>>> there's probably lots of biases in the codebase because no
one
>>>>> contributes
>>>>>>>> anything to it for all the reasons cited above. Such is the
reality
>>>> we
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Until I actually merged in Eclipse Aether, worked with Benjamin
to
>>>> get
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> the ITs working, and testing it in the field with 10 or so
people I
>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> know how much work was involved, or what plugins were affected
>>> until
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> started getting feedback. I am not interested in weaving
stuff back
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> forth between the branches given that all the ITs work with
Eclipse
>>>>> Aether
>>>>>>>> merged in and there are a few plugin compatibility issues.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I myself cannot imagine trying to keep the two of those branches
in
>>>>> sync and
>>>>>>>> I don't see the point because the Eclipse Aether stuff is
ready. I
>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>> energy to maintain what I proposed. Even if someone wanted
to stand
>>>> up
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> maintain the 3.1.x branch I believe it would be a waste of
time
>>> given
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> little time the core receives.
>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Stephen Connolly
>>>>>>> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3 March 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the
SLF4J support
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> the isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens
when we
>>> integrate
>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse
>>>>>>>>>> Aether and suggest an alternate release path.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> SLF4J may cause some issues, but the introduction
of Eclipse
>>> Aether
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> almost certainly going to cause issues. In Eclipse
Aether some
>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>> representations have been changed and it's not completely
>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>> compatible. These changes have been made for good
reason but
>>>> because
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> waited almost 18 months to attempt to integrate Eclipse
Aether
>>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> some drift in the APIs and the Sonatype Aether APIs
have leaked
>>> out
>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> plugins like the Android Maven Plugin, the Shade
Plugin, the
>>>>> Dependency
>>>>>>>>>> Plugin and any plugin that reaches into the core
of Maven to get
>>>>> Aether
>>>>>>>>>> classes. Shielding Aether from users hasn't worked
out in
>>> practice.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have had a version of Tesla[1] that integrates
SLF4J and
>>> Eclipse
>>>>> Aether
>>>>>>>>>> and the ITs pass but I've had many issues with plugins
(and with
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>> JDK8 I need to track down). I've had people using
it for a couple
>>>>> weeks
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> all of them have run into Aether related issues in
one or more of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> plugins I've mentioned above. I quickly tried to
build the new
>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> plugin with the dependency tree and it doesn't appear
yet to
>>> bridge
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> difference between Sonatype Aether and Eclipse Aether
in the
>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> plugin. I'm not sure this approach will work.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I can tell you from the first time we created a shim
between
>>> Aether
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the Maven Artifact APIs that this was not fun and
it took
>>> full-time
>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> for a couple months. I am not willing to do that
again and I
>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>> doubt
>>>>>>>>>> anyone but myself or Benjamin can do it in a reasonable
amount of
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> neither of us want to do it. I don't think it's the
end of the
>>>> world
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> some plugins that touch Aether will not work without
some
>>>> upgrading.
>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> this is a major API breakage and would deserve a
major version
>>>>> change to
>>>>>>>>>> 4.0.0. I think it needs to be clear that people know
what they
>>> may
>>>>>>>>>> potentially be getting themselves into.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have not formed an opinion yet, but here are some things
that
>>> are
>>>>>>>>> filtering around in my head w.r.t. this proposal.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * When the switch to Aether was originally put forward,
the
>>> promise
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> that with Aether at Eclipse there would be a community
of people
>>> to
>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the directed dependency graph problem set...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> http://lh5.ggpht.com/-MY5CB_MVKCo/UQErH7pws-I/AAAAAAAAAK8/WT_zSXWy2eQ/grap
>>>>>>>>> h.png?imgmax=800
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am seriously worried when I see that *I* am the #3
most active
>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>> to Aether at Eclipse, not that I don't believe I could
be a
>>>>> contributor to
>>>>>>>>> Aether, more that I have on two occasions said "OK, Stephen,
time
>>> to
>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>> and get involved with Aether", started trying to get
my feet wet
>>>> with
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> small tweaks, and then had my spare time stolen again.
I.O.W. I
>>> have
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> engaged with Aether to the level I feel comfortable with
saying
>>> *I*
>>>>> am a
>>>>>>>>> significant contributor...and I (as of 3rd Feb 2012)
am the #3
>>>>> committer!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * OK, so logback has effectively 1 active committer...
but a very
>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> history, and an API that other implementations are available
for,
>>>> and
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> the defacto standard. Aether has really only got users
because of
>>>>> Maven
>>>>>>>>> from what I can see, and it's got Benjamin as its developer
and
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>>>>> Now
>>>>>>>>> Benjamin knows this space backwards and is great at writing
good
>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> this is the proposal to resolve the issue of keeping
Benjamin's
>>>> skills
>>>>>>>>> available for Maven, while Benjamin (for perfectly legitimate,
if
>>>>> outside
>>>>>>>>> of the control of the PMC, reasons) does not want to
develop code
>>> at
>>>>> ASF
>>>>>>>>> (based on the evidence of not seeing any engagement from
Benjamin
>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Board reared its heavy hand), then lets state it as such.
But I
>>> see
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the community of logback developers vs the community
of aether
>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>> are a different kettle of fish. If we tie ourselves now
to the
>>>> Aether
>>>>> API,
>>>>>>>>> we make it hard to move to an alternative implementation.
If there
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>> competing implementations of the Aether API I would be
happy to
>>> say
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the API is robust and there has been true separation
of API from
>>>>>>>>> Implementation. In this case we have and API with one
and only one
>>>>>>>>> implementation, it may or may not have true separation
of API from
>>>>>>>>> Implementation, but without having been hardened by having
a
>>> second
>>>>>>>>> implementation, it is hard to know for sure. There may
be design
>>>>> biases
>>>>>>>>> based on the views of the implementers.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I guess my point is that I would need to be convinced
some more
>>> that
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> would not be baking an API with biases into the core
of Maven.
>>> Right
>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have the case where a few plugins have leaked dependencies
to
>>>> Sonatype
>>>>>>>>> Aether, the Maven developer view has been that plugin
authors
>>> should
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> that, but obviously some have, in so doing they should
have been
>>>>> aware of
>>>>>>>>> the risk they take in using APIs that Maven is not saying
are part
>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> exported hull.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Having said that, nobody else has stood up to say "oh
I have an
>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>> for Aether" so we cannot propose an alternative at this
point, and
>>>> as
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> point out, there is a need for some of the information
to be
>>> exposed
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> plugins (heck versions-maven-plugin needs some of that
stuff, and
>>> I
>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> how difficult it is to maintain functionality across
2.x and 3.x
>>> for
>>>>>>>>> v-m-p)
>>>>>>>>> so we need to tell plugin authors here is the API you
can rely on.
>>>> So
>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>> currently feeling negative towards using Eclipse Aether
as that
>>> API,
>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>> have no alternative, and I don't have the time to write
the shim
>>>> layer
>>>>>>>>> myself, so this is not a veto point... just a sore one.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * John Casey was looking at writing an alternative for
Aether. I
>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> really like to hear his input w.r.t. how he has got on,
and also
>>> how
>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> the Aether API has abstracted the problem (given that
he would
>>> have
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> view point of an independent implementation in this problem
>>> space).
>>>>> *If*
>>>>>>>>> John has a nearly complete implementation of his API
for
>>> dependency
>>>>> graph
>>>>>>>>> solving, what I would like to see is how difficult it
would be to
>>>> map
>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> API as an alternative Aether implementation I.O.W. test
how well
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Aether
>>>>>>>>> API abstraction is, and test if there are hidden biases
that the
>>>>>>>>> architects
>>>>>>>>> of the API cannot see by nature of writing their implementation.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As such I believe doing a 3.0.5 release, and then
a 3.0.6 release
>>>>> (to fix
>>>>>>>>>> the problem with 3.0.5), a 3.1.0 release for SLF4J
and then a
>>> 4.0.0
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Aether changes is just going to confuse users
greatly. I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> prefer to roll in the Eclipse Aether changes and
skip the 3.1.0
>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> just call it a 4.0.0.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think we have said we were going to do a 3.1.0. To
be honest
>>> this
>>>>> smacks
>>>>>>>>> a bit too much of the 3.0 rational again... I fear that
given we
>>>> have
>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>> that we were going to do a 3.1.0, let's stick with that.
It gives
>>>> us a
>>>>>>>>> little bit more time to digest whether we should bite
Eclipse's
>>>>> Aether as
>>>>>>>>> an exposed API or whether we should shim it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am not, given how little time I have to commit code
for Maven,
>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>> direct the decision, but that is my view. I will let
the people
>>> who
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> willing to step up and commit drive what versions they
want to
>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to move on and start developing
some features.
>>>>> Trying
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> create adapter layers and shims is just going to
kill us. I think
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> just cut bait because there is no desire amongst
the people who
>>> can
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> shim that have time (myself, Benjamin, Igor) and
I doubt Hervé or
>>>>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>>>> really have the time to make a complete shim between
the versions
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Aether. The few points that people are calling into
Aether
>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>> expose the whole API so the shim needed will be enormous
given
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>> name changes and the API changes in Aether. It will
be very much
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> bridge Aether and Maven Artifact APIs and that simply
isn't
>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> would ever have been done without full-time work
and I just don't
>>>>> deem
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> a worthy investment this time.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I take your point on board, I just don't have a warm
and fuzzy
>>>> feeling
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the API of Aether has no design biases that may preclude
some of
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> features that others (such as myself when I *do* get
the time)
>>> would
>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> to add.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So I propose rolling in the Eclipse Aether changes
along with the
>>>>> JSR330
>>>>>>>>>> and SLF4J changes and call it 4.0.0. Also I feel
that any hiding
>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Aether at this point has been a failure. Everyone
is jumping
>>> around
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Maven Artifact APIs because they need to get at more
powerful
>>>>> constructs.
>>>>>>>>>> This hiding of Aether in practice has been futile
and no one is
>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> to make another artifact API in Maven, it's just
not going to
>>>> happen
>>>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>> face it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> John, could you please chim in with some status information
on
>>> your
>>>>>>>>> explorations
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Once Eclipse Aether 1.0.0 is released given the Eclipse
standards
>>>>> the API
>>>>>>>>>> will have to remain compatible. I believe all the
changes in
>>> Aether
>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the last 18 months have been worthwhile and there's
no point to
>>>>> unwind
>>>>>>>>>> anything to try and make it work with Sonatype Aether.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't want Sonatype Aether as the API plugins depend
on, so we
>>> do
>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> decouple that from people trying to solve the problem.
I don't
>>> know
>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>> that Eclipse Aether is an API that is the API we want
to
>>> expose... I
>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> saying it isn't, just saying that I don't know it is...
yet
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If we agree on this then I will roll in all the changes,
figure
>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>>> wrong with JDK8 and then we release it. The ITs pass
and we'll
>>> just
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> help people adapt their plugins. I talked to Manfred
Moser who
>>>> works
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Android Maven plugin and he doesn't see an issue
with updating.
>>>> We'll
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> have to update the rest of the plugins or we'll be
spending
>>> months
>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>> to make a shim or a magic classloader and I'm not
sure it's
>>> really
>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>>> it. I think it's time to move on with our better
core and just
>>> move
>>>>> on in
>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think people need to digest this and think about
it, but I do
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> is the most practical way forward.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> SLF4J I consider standard,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that view from my PoV. Multiple
>>> implementations,
>>>>> ok so
>>>>>>>>> the 3 real implementations share the same root author
as original
>>>>>>>>> architect, but there are separate communities and the
API has been
>>>>> battle
>>>>>>>>> hardened for some time. I might quibble with one or two
parts of
>>>>> SLF4J,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> it has a massive community and it is the defacto standard.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> JSR330 is standard
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> More than one implementation, the two major implementations
have
>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>> different heritages, again, one may quibble with parts
of the API,
>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>> is able to have two big implementations stand on top
of it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> and Eclipse Aether post 1.0.0 will adhere to the
Eclipse API
>>>>> guidelines
>>>>>>>>>> and won't be changing
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But that is a different metric than the other two technologies.
>>> Yes
>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> better to use this than Sonatype Aether (which since
the move to
>>>>> Eclipse
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> effectively a dead stack... but that was the point of
*moving* it
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> Eclipse) but that does not prove (in the original sense
of "test")
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> API is absent of biases.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> SLF4J is tackling a smallish problem, so biases are easy
to spot.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> JSR330 is tacking a problem, to my view, comparable in
size to
>>>>> Aether, yet
>>>>>>>>> it had two major heavyweight implementations collaborate/fight
to
>>>>> build a
>>>>>>>>> common API. As such a lot of the biases will have been
shaken
>>> out...
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> will still be biases, but there is enough scope between
the two
>>>> major
>>>>>>>>> implementations for a 3rd implementation to arise, innovate
and
>>>> steal
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> crown. How likely is it that a competing implementation
could
>>> arise
>>>>> and do
>>>>>>>>> that with Aether's API?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> so it's best just to build on these technologies
of any new
>>>> versions
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Maven and get on with it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> SLF4J, you have my +1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> JSR330, you have my +1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Aether...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * I am +1 on integrating that into Maven,
>>>>>>>>> * I am _undecided_ on officially exposing it as an API
for plugin
>>>>>>>>> developers.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I look forward to the debate of those who have the spare
time and
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> prepared to walk the walk and commit code on my points
above to
>>> sway
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -Stephen
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://ci.tesla.io:8080/job/tesla-its/ws/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>>>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In short, man creates for himself a new religion
of a rational
>>>>>>>>>> and technical order to justify his work and to be
justified in
>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
>>>>>>>> and technical order to justify his work and to be justified
in it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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 & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I
>>> have
>>>>> no respect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Edward Gibbon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.
> 
> -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kurosawa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that
is, 
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

 -- John Kenneth Galbraith






Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message