>Unfortunately I think this has an unwanted side effect. Because you
>can only load an extension once in the build, it would mean if you
>wanted to override it, it would have to be in the root of the reactor
>build (or a parent of that). If you happen to declare it in the child,
>the super
On 29/03/2008, at 2:04 AM, John Casey wrote:
Here's a question:
Could we specify the wagon-webdav in the super-POM as a build
extension? Even if there are no project POMs in the current build,
the super POM should be built, right? Also, I would think (though
I'd have to investigate to be
Hrm, if it allows overrides and still works for deploy:deploy-file, this
might be the safest approach.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV
Here's a que
Here's a question:
Could we specify the wagon-webdav in the super-POM as a build
extension? Even if there are no project POMs in the current build,
the super POM should be built, right? Also, I would think (though I'd
have to investigate to be sure) that respecifying the wagon-webdav
buil
On 28/03/2008, at 9:41 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I've taken a look at the code and found two problems:
a) the wagon in core was reverted to beta-1, which is probably the
root of James' problems. beta-2 corrects the redirects and has been
stable for some time. I presume this was an accident a
I've taken a look at the code and found two problems:
a) the wagon in core was reverted to beta-1, which is probably the
root of James' problems. beta-2 corrects the redirects and has been
stable for some time. I presume this was an accident as it came in
with Milos toolkits commit. Milos -
+1
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 20:11 -0400, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> >The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when
> >we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new
> >version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider and
>
> >all its deps, or
>The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when
>we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new
>version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider and
>all its deps, or make your own shaded JAR which would be a pain in the
>ass.
(see
On 01/03/2008, at 11:30 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Yes, I'm generally in favour of the proposal - it is how we've
always wanted it to work.
I'm just chucking out ideas.
Yep, I just meant in reference to not needing to distribute stuff in
the core.
- I don't see any point of putting
On 29-Feb-08, at 3:40 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 01/03/2008, at 9:02 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Here's the direction I would like to go in:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/URL-based+dynamic+loading+of+providers+for+artifact+retrieval+and+deployment
Full support for all types of transp
On 01/03/2008, at 9:02 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Here's the direction I would like to go in:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/URL-based+dynamic+loading+of+providers+for+artifact+retrieval+and+deployment
Full support for all types of transport for retrieval and deployment
in a standard
29, 2008 2:25 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV
On 28-Feb-08, at 9:58 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28-Feb-08, at 1:35 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the Wago
ubject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV
On 28-Feb-08, at 9:58 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28-Feb-08, at 1:35 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the WagonDAV changes as
1) As we discussed about extensi
+1 to putting in on the url, that's a muuuch better solution and works
for all wagons, not just webdav.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:25 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Wagon changes and WebDAV
On 28-F
On 28-Feb-08, at 9:58 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28-Feb-08, at 1:35 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the WagonDAV changes as
1) As we discussed about extensions on the list that for
deployment the
On 28-Feb-08, at 4:04 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I'm fine removing whatever you want from core once you can show me
the same use case working without it.
Not a problem, I'll roll it back and use the dynamic collections. I
don't want the core getting bloated out when it's not required.
>
> Plain PUT does not work if the directory doesn't exist yet. (That's part
> of the HTTP spec).
> You need something to create the directory (or "Collection" in WebDAV
> Terms), this is the MKCOL method.
>
> While it is true that FTP is also a provider, it should be painfully
> obvious that all e
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28-Feb-08, at 1:35 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the WagonDAV changes as
1) As we discussed about extensions on the list that for deployment
the required libraries necessary for deployment should
On 29/02/2008, at 10:47 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 28-Feb-08, at 2:06 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 8:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Dynamic collections have been there for a while. And why is
deploy:deploy-file a concern, and for webdav. This will be the
case for all provi
On 28-Feb-08, at 2:06 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 8:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Dynamic collections have been there for a while. And why is
deploy:deploy-file a concern, and for webdav. This will be the case
for all providers. FTP deploy doesn't work out of the box either,
On 29/02/2008, at 8:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Dynamic collections have been there for a while. And why is
deploy:deploy-file a concern, and for webdav. This will be the case
for all providers. FTP deploy doesn't work out of the box either,
should be start adding everything because they
On 28-Feb-08, at 1:35 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the WagonDAV changes as
1) As we discussed about extensions on the list that for deployment
the required libraries necessary for deployment should be
dependencies lis
On 29/02/2008, at 5:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to roll back all the WagonDAV changes as
1) As we discussed about extensions on the list that for deployment
the required libraries necessary for deployment should be
dependencies listed in the deployment plugin and not wired into t
In general I think merging wagons together isn't a good idea. Lets keep
them simple and easy to support. The last thing we need is more unused
dependencies or worse, bugs in webdav affecting plain ol http.
--Brian
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu
24 matches
Mail list logo
