Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>]

Hi guys,

I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
1.0 (DOXIA-146).
WDYT?

Vincent

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>]

Sorry, I did a mistake due the new versioning :)

I speak to remove it in doxia 1.1 for Maven 2.1.x (with Doxia 1.1.x).

Vincent

2008/12/14 Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>:
> Hi guys,
>
> I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
> 1.0 (DOXIA-146).
> WDYT?
>
> Vincent
>

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

I can't remember if it was also overloaded with the new package name  
and some plugins were transitioned to that or not.

If that's not the case, the only trick I could think of is having the  
plugin classloader modify references on the fly... :)

- Brett

On 15/12/2008, at 10:10 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:

> Vincent Siveton wrote:
>
>> I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
>> 1.0 (DOXIA-146).
>> WDYT?
>
> This interface is still referenced by MavenReport from the maven- 
> reporting-api. Hence it seems removing it would require a new  
> reporting API when Doxia 1.0 is integrated into Maven. Not sure how  
> much havoc that causes to all the reporting Maven plugins out there.
>
>
> Benjamin

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>]

Hi Brett,

2008/12/14 Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:

> You will need to at least introduce the overloaded method into 2.0.x and
> deprecate the old one... but again this might cause problems for anyone
> using the interface and not the AbstractMavenReport.

We have already a coupling pb between Maven and Doxia. See MNG-3402.

> Perhaps a better approach can be found that can isolate the classloading of
> different versions in the Core so that the change can be made directly.

Sounds like better for me. It is a Maven pb, not a Doxia one.

Cheers,

Vincent

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

On 15/12/2008, at 10:21 AM, Vincent Siveton wrote:

> 2008/12/14 Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>:
>> Vincent Siveton wrote:
>>
>>> I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
>>> 1.0 (DOXIA-146).
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> This interface is still referenced by MavenReport from the
>> maven-reporting-api. Hence it seems removing it would require a new
>> reporting API when Doxia 1.0 is integrated into Maven. Not sure how  
>> much
>> havoc that causes to all the reporting Maven plugins out there.
>
> Agree with you for maven 2.0.x but for maven 2.1.x I think it is  
> possible.

You will need to at least introduce the overloaded method into 2.0.x  
and deprecate the old one... but again this might cause problems for  
anyone using the interface and not the AbstractMavenReport.

Perhaps a better approach can be found that can isolate the  
classloading of different versions in the Core so that the change can  
be made directly.

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>]

2008/12/14 Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>:
> Vincent Siveton wrote:
>
>> I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
>> 1.0 (DOXIA-146).
>> WDYT?
>
> This interface is still referenced by MavenReport from the
> maven-reporting-api. Hence it seems removing it would require a new
> reporting API when Doxia 1.0 is integrated into Maven. Not sure how much
> havoc that causes to all the reporting Maven plugins out there.

Agree with you for maven 2.0.x but for maven 2.1.x I think it is possible.

Vincent

>
> Benjamin
>

Re: Removed org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for 1.0

[Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>]

Vincent Siveton wrote:

> I proposed to remove officially org.codehaus.doxia.sink.Sink for the
> 1.0 (DOXIA-146).
> WDYT?

This interface is still referenced by MavenReport from the 
maven-reporting-api. Hence it seems removing it would require a new 
reporting API when Doxia 1.0 is integrated into Maven. Not sure how much 
havoc that causes to all the reporting Maven plugins out there.


Benjamin