I find some the these comments inappropriate and unprofessional.
Joakim Erdfelt-2 wrote: > > Brett Porter wrote: >> Well, since you asked :) >> >> On 17/10/2007, at 2:10 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote: >> >>> ArchivaArtifactConsumer is an abstract-dealing-with-artifacts consumer. >>> RepositoryContentConsumer is for files. >>> >>> A file that isn't an artifact can be *.xml, *.sha1, *.md5, >>> maven-metadata.xml, bad content, poorly named content, etc. >>> >>> Would it be better to state the phase/scan instead? >>> >>> RepositoryContentConsumer becomes -> RepositoryScanConsumer >>> ArchivaArtifactConsumer becomes -> DatabaseScanConsumer >> >> These seem better, though there is still some question over even these >> names. I suggest following through on Wendy's questions before jumping >> ahead with anything. >> >>> >>> And I would rather make this change now (yes Brett, I see you there) >>> and not have to deal with backwards compatibility issues post 1.0 "in >>> the wild". This time (right now) is the best time to make this >>> change. After the 1.0 release is just going to add misery and pain >>> to this process. Now is the sweet spot. We could make the change >>> post 1.0 but it wouldn't be a change, it would just be another >>> band-aide. Make the change now. Did you know that making the >>> change now would take less than an hour, including testing. I think >>> that Now is a good time. Now is the winter of our discontent. Right >>> now, hey, its your tomorrow. Right now, C'mon (Brett), its >>> everything. Right now, catch a magic moment, do it, right here and >>> now. It means everything. Its right now, oh, tell me what are you >>> waiting for, turn this thing around. :-) >> >> I know you're somewhat kidding here, but I'm not quite sure how much, >> so I'll say it anyway :) > > I am not kidding, make this change now. > I'll do it. It's no big deal. > >> >> I do not agree that 1.0 is some miracle milestone of inflexibility. >> >> For two reasons: >> a) whatever in the wild milestone you are referring to should have >> been at the point of beta-1, as I said in the last mail >> b) it's bad thinking that things can't change after 1.0 > > That sounds reasonable, and a statement not based on fear of change, but > ... > >> >> Frankly, I would prefer that development was done in the same fashion >> whether it's 0.0.1-alpha-0, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.1, 2.0 or Archiva 2008. >> Simple, minimal public API exposure that allows maintaining >> compatibility and the ability to refactor implementation details >> within a module. > > This statement contradicts your previous one. > What we now want to change now is a public API. > I do not want to fall into the same trap that maven fell into when it > comes to "maintaining compatibility", we have far too much in maven that > exists solely for "maintaining compatibility" that is complete and utter > cruft. > > We are in that situation because of 2 major factors. > 1) A hurry up and get a release out mindset. > 2) A fear of changing the new APIs before a final (non-beta, non-RC, > release) > > Now is the perfect time to correct this. > Lets do it now. > Lets put it up for a vote now. > >> >> Let's just define what the acceptable extension points for Archiva 1.0 >> are (probably consumers, so maybe you've found the one example where >> it might be difficult!), document them, and commit to maintaining them >> and move forward in that way. >> >> - Brett > > -- > - Joakim Erdfelt > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Open Source Software (OSS) Developer > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Archiva-Consumers-question-tf4637899.html#a13277036 Sent from the archiva-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
