Sorry I missed this interesting thread. I completely agree with your analysis. In 2022 I don’t think anyone consume its artifacts from another protocol than http(s) or file. It’s probably another story for the publication and in this area wagon is still making sense but for the resolver I don’t see any interest to keep it (especially if it can help to improve the performances and the reduction of layers can help to simplify and optimize more this part of maven)
Le jeu. 23 déc. 2021 à 10:56, Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]> a écrit : > Ping, no one else has any opinion on this? > > T > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:26 AM Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Howdy, > > > > I'd like to pitch a topic about maven-resolver and usage of Wagon in it. > > As IMHO, Wagon use in maven-resolver is far from optimal (is very > > suboptimal). > > > > Typical example is this PR: > > https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/140 > > > > This PR _halves HTTP requests made by resolver_ against Maven Central (!) > > by utilizing hashes sent by Maven Central in HTTP response header. Hence, > > instead of doing GET /a.jar and then GET /a.jar.sha1 it does both at once > > with one HTTP request. IMHO, this is huge. But, this works only with > > maven-resolver-transport-http that is NOT used with Maven (as it uses > > maven-resolver-transport-wagon). Moreover, doing this in Wagon, that is > > layer by layer ... of abstractions is just very hard. > > > > IMHO, back in Maven2 times, when Wagon was conceived, the "transport > > agnosticism" and "universal transport" was really a life saver: back > then, > > people used sticks and duct-tapes to craft "repo solutions", hence access > > like SSHFS, Apache httpd + mod_dav and who knows what were common, and > > Wagon having supporting all these cases was really a cool thing to have. > > > > But fast forward 10+ years, there is really no reason to do this today, > as > > the landscape changed a LOT, there are MRMs on every corner popping up > like > > mushrooms. I don't really see use of maven-resolver (and maven's use of > > maven-resolver) that does not involve HTTP or FILE. > > > > In short, resolver NOT involving HTTP is something you will VERY RARELY > > see. Or in other words, maven-resolver concerning anything NOT HTTP (and > > FILE) is just sub optimal. > > > > So I propose to retarget maven-resolver (and it's use within maven) to > use > > maven-resolver-transport-http instead of Wagon. Wagon, similarly like > > Plexus, is there to stay in Maven, but it's use in maven-resolver is > really > > really suboptimal. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Tamas > > > > > -- Arnaud Héritier Twitter/GitHub/... : aheritier
