[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7001?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17219528#comment-17219528
]
Michael Osipov commented on MNG-7001:
-------------------------------------
> Interesting idea. Is it possible to find out the proxied repo purely on the
> client side (i. e. in Maven), or would there also be a need to change the
> server side (i. e. Nexus)? As I said, I'm no expert, but I guess that this
> could be for a separate issue provided it is a viable idea?
Since repo groups emerged at some point we need to stop treading mirrors like
repos, we need to treat them as we treat HTTP proxies: fully transparent. So
not the mirror id needs to be persistent, but the original one. This cannot be
solely achieved on the client side. The repo manager has to tell me this. But
here are there problems:
* Who will change all mirror implementations
* How to transport metadata transport-agnostic. SFTP does not offer such things
as HTTP headers, etc.
Let's get back to your points:
1. This one is easy. I have found this already. It's directly in the enhanced
local repo manager impl.
2. The exception is generated with Maven Resolver, it needs to be addressed
there.
It hard to tell how long this is going to take until we agree on something as a
starting point. Maven Resolver code is quite straight forward to understand.
Moreover, will an updated appraoch require changes in repo managers, settings
model, Maven itself or can we solely solve it in Resolver?!
> Reconsider seemingly useless check of artifacts' source repository introduced
> in Maven 3.0
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MNG-7001
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7001
> Project: Maven
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.0, 3.1.1, 3.2.5, 3.3.9, 3.5.4, 3.6.3
> Reporter: Petr Bodnar
> Priority: Major
>
> This problem of "by-nobody-really-requested check for artifacts' source
> repository" (just "repo-check" further on) is actually considered a bug by
> many Maven users. It was introduced back in Maven 3.0, 10 years ago \(!). The
> repo-check and its _practical_ disadvantages have been already thoroughly
> described for example in my blog
> [here|https://programmedbycoincidence.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-biggest-wtf-new-feature-ive-ever.html]
> and discussed here within Jira: MNG-5181, MNG-5185, MNG-5289 and MNG-5883.
> *TL;DR What is requested in this issue:*
> # Remove the repo-check altogether.
> # If that's not possible, make the repo-check disabled by-default and have an
> option to enable it for those who need it for whatever reason.
> # If even that is not possible, alter Maven and its warnings and errors so
> that they do not confuse users.
> # Reason about the need for the repo-check, document the reasons.
> ----
> The repo-check can be _somewhat_ avoided by passing the {{-llr}} option to
> Maven. AFAIK though, e. g. Eclipse's embedded Maven used for dependency
> resolution doesn't support this option. Another long-outstanding issue is
> that using the {{-llr}} option generates this warning on Maven build:
> {noformat}
> [WARNING] Disabling enhanced local repository: using legacy is strongly
> discouraged to ensure build reproducibility.
> {noformat}
> Generally it might make sense (possibly because of activating some quite
> another old part of Maven that, apart from other things, doesn't mark down
> the artifacts' sources to "\*.repositories" files?). But when users have _no
> other option_ that could be used for making their build reproducible by
> skipping the repo-check, then the warning doesn't make sense to them. The
> only other choice they have is to remove all those "\*.repositories" files
> from their local Maven repository in order to make their builds work again.
> Another mind-blowing issue is described in MNG-5185: If an already-downloaded
> artifact doesn't go through the hard-coded repo-check, Maven just tells the
> user "the artifact could not be resolved". _But you'll get the very same
> message when downloading an artifact really fails._ So unless you dig in,
> these two totally different situations are not distinguishable from each
> other.
> ----
> Yet to date, no action was taken by Maven authors to help with any of the
> problems. There is also no really good (read "making-sense-in-real-life")
> explanation of real pros of the introduced repo-check, that would out-weight
> its cons, other than for example:
> {quote}The artifacts have an identity. It matters where the artifacts were
> downloaded from. Artifact A downloaded from X is not the same thing to Maven
> 3 as A downloaded from Y. This can happen when you flip your settings.xml to
> go from using a repository manager to using Maven Central directly for
> example.
> {quote}
> (taken from MNG-5289 comment)
> The logical question here is, to whom concretely "it matters"? Please, give
> examples of what could go wrong if one has downloaded a released version of
> an artifact and now its source repository changes or becomes unavailable.
> Please note that we shouldn't consider the very improbable case of artifacts
> downloaded from various repositories would have different content even though
> having the very same GAV. The Maven's local repository filesystem structure
> is not able to cope with that situation anyway, or is it?
> Finally, there is also a performance-wise con of the repo-check - Maven needs
> to contact the source repository every time it builds a project referencing
> the checked artifact as one of its dependencies. Or doesn't it?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
