rmannibucau commented on code in PR #1378: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1378#discussion_r1460531928
########## api/maven-api-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/api/PathType.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.maven.api; + +import java.nio.file.Path; +import java.util.Objects; +import java.util.Optional; + +import org.apache.maven.api.annotations.Experimental; +import org.apache.maven.api.annotations.Nonnull; + +/** + * The option of a command-line tool where to place the paths to some dependencies. + * A {@code PathType} can identify the Java class-path, the Java module-path, + * or another kind of path for another programming language for example. + * This class is like an enumeration, except that it is extensible: + * plugins can define their own kinds of path. + * + * <p>Path types are often exclusive. For example, a dependency should not be both + * on the Java class-path and on the Java module-path.</p> + * + * @see DependencyProperties#PATH_TYPES + * @see org.apache.maven.api.services.DependencyResolverResult#getDispatchedPaths() + * + * @since 4.0.0 + */ +@Experimental +public abstract class PathType { Review Comment: Not sure we need the enumeration at all, java is not in a closed set of paths (just check out war, ear, osgi for common examples but this is still just a subset) so in this design type is really a banalised value core does not even have to be aware about at the end of the refactoring, only mojos (even if shared somewhere but not core) so an interface is okish even if it is really just a `String` and not name+option. The link to an option is dependent of the context (=mojo) so would rather belong to the impl (integration layer since we wouldnt have an interface for a String I guess) - this is one reason I was not ultra enthusiast to use type for that, means we need to ensure we can duplicate dependencies with multiple types now even if all are just `jar`. From a design standpoint this is too opiniated to stay in core IMHO as mentionned on the list so maybe keep it an `interface {name}` or merge whatever works then work on moving it outside core (not 100% sure maven-shared is still a thing for plugins but looks like it would be a saner location or we just create a repo for java plain command line options maybe). -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
