Re: Plans for Wagon-1.0 final release?

>
> Before we close out wagon 1.0...
>
> Should we address the recurring scp / permissions issue we have with
> people.apache.org?
>
> - Joakim
>
> John Casey wrote:
> > I think all of these items are great ideas. I think you've done a
> > great job
> > of summing up the major recurring discussions about improving wagon
> > (not to
> > mention a couple of good ideas in there that I haven't heard much
> > about). I
> > wouldn't stand in the way of any of this...except where wagon-1.0 is
> > concerned.
> >
> > IMO, most of this list should be developed post-1.0 (whether that's
> > 1.1 or
> > 2.0 is up for debate, of course; this wouldn't really seem to demand a
> > complete rewrite, which is what I'd expect of a 2.0). I don't see how
> > you're
> > going to make some of these changes without creating a lot more backward
> > compatibility issues. If we planned on tackling these things in the
> > 1.0branch, we should have gone through more alphas. IMO, we've missed
> > our
> > chance.
> >
> > I think it's important to remember that the existing wagon api works
> > well in
> > many cases, and for a large number of users. We should declare this one
> a
> > success, and move on to implementing the things we learned from it.
> >
> > -john
> >
> > On 2/28/07, Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just so that we have "Joakim's plans" documented here ....
> >>
> >> Wagon Ideas.
> >>
> >>    1. Add Timeouts.
> >>       Question becomes, how do we configure this value?
> >>       Per Protocol? or Per Repository?
> >>       Do we use the <server><configuration> section in the settings.xml
> ?
> >>    2. Add Client Header Identification.
> >>       This would only be useful on some protocols (such as http / dav),
> >>       but completely irrelevant on others.
> >>       Jason could use this to track the uptake of specific versions of
> >>       maven on the repo1.maven.org side.
> >>       If we decide to do this for http, we can make it be a separate
> >>       request header, or a modification of the USER-AGENT string.
> >>    3. Streaming Wagons.
> >>    4. Limited Wagon Transactions.
> >>       This becomes a problem when we have a deploy that modifies the
> >>       maven-metadata.xml
> >>    5. Deprecation of repository id / server id as the authentication
> >>       binding mechanism.
> >>       Use what precisely to bind to?
> >>          1. hostname
> >>          2. hostname:port
> >>          3. protocol://hostname:port
> >>          4. regex of any of the above
> >>          5. all of the above
> >>    6. Whitelists on repositories in pom.xml, based on groupId.  (don't
> >>       bother searching this repository if the groupId doesn't match).
> >>       This should help optimize the repository searching.  It's just a
> >>       piece of build optimization, anyone consuming the pom could just
> >>       as well ignore this optimization with no ill effects.
> >>    7. Password Encryption in the settings.xml
> >>
> >> I welcome discussion.
> >> Big +1 or -1 on any concept above.
> >>
> >> And I realize that the concepts above are not wagon exclusive, but
> >> rather overlap with maven 2.1 too.
> >>
> >> - Joakim
> >>
> >> Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> >> > John Casey wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I just committed some changes to trunk that should restore backward
> >> >> compatibility for using older wagons (at least in the vast
> >> majority of
> >> >> cases). It may still break if there is an older version of a wagon
> >> >> out there
> >> >> that doesn't extend from AbstractWagon (since the Wagon interface
> >> >> picked up
> >> >> like 5 new methods lately).
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we start talking about a Wagon 1.0-final release? What do we
> need
> >> >> to get
> >> >> this done? It looks like the current roadmap only shows 3
> outstanding
> >> >> issues
> >> >> for the next release. Does anyone have plans for finishing those,
> and
> >> >> are
> >> >> they enough to serve as a basis for a final release?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm just trying to figure out what plans there are for this, since
> >> >> I'd like
> >> >> to move toward a 2.1-alpha-1 release of maven, and this is going
> >> to be
> >> a
> >> >> prereq.
> >> >
> >> > I say release what Wagon is now as 1.0 (in other words no API
> >> > breakage) and put Joakim's plans into Wagon 2.0.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Trygve
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wagon-dev-unsubscribe@...
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: wagon-dev-help@...
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wagon-dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: wagon-dev-help@...
>
>