You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/30 09:36:30 UTC
Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Unless someone objects, I will reimplement/backport all the subtle
fixes that have been added to DirectoryScanner/SelectorUtils in
context of maven-shared-utils.
Thereafter I think I'll test-port every single maven project that uses
plexus-utils/directoryscanner and after THAT I'll delete *all* the
unused code in
maven-shared-utils org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io package.
There are not many current users of maven-shared-utils, so I assume
such a strategy would be ok ?
Kristian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
If you apply the 3 classes you wrote (see attachement in MSHARED-236) then all the tests will pass again :)
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
> Well obviously given the current number of failing
> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>
> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>
> Kristian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>.
>>Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse.
I know that, I was using that as a example of a similarly complex OS based
eco system that also has binary backwards compatibility issues/goals.
>>I'm was even aware that they have a problem.
I have a vague recollection that they did once. My point was, it's not that
simple.
>>This is really something I personally need as well - as do thousands of
other maven users. My company build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98
modules atm. Other projects I
5 Minutes I wish!. Try 3.5 hours (which I just cut down to 42 minutes via
-T8)!
>>maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA,
OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need
to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is
utter broken currently.
In cases like this, I cheat.
I set up separate Jenkins jobs, for each module, and let it sort out the
dependencies. Then it cascades nicely.
-Chris
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>
> Not at all, those are good questions actually!
>
>
> > I don't care so much about
> > *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>
> Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our
> repo again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and
> later to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively.
> That sucks big times and hinders the daily development.
>
>
> >I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental
> compilation,
>
> >hugely complex refactoring etc.
>
> Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for
> most of it.
>
>
> Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm
> was even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I
> personally need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company
> build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I
> maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA,
> OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need
> to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is
> utter broken currently.
>
>
> People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel
> build support.
>
> I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>
> >To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <
> struberg@yahoo.de>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM
> >Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
> >
> >I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
> >
> >I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental
> compilation,
> >hugely complex refactoring etc.
> >
> >But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
> >
> >Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
> >to spend the time elsewhere?
> >
> >I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
> >have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
> >caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
> >
> >These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
> >something like this.
> >
> >-Chris
> >
> >PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
> >more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
> >*how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should
> place
> >> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
> >>
> >> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
> >> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
> >> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
> >>
> >> wdyt?
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> >> > To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
> >> >
> >> > Well obviously given the current number of failing
> >> > tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
> >> >
> >> > I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
> >> > org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
> >> >
> >> > Kristian
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>
> well, I had some patches back then and I was asked to sign an obscure CLA (which I refused).
> Also the license headers have been changed without any code changes, etc.
>
> People without an iCLA on file did changes, etc. That kind of IP handling is just not good enough for an ASF project imo.
>
> And given that most of the code originates from ASF projects I see no reason to not move back the parts we really need (IP cleaned of course).
>
>
> You can call me picky, I can certainly live with that :)
>
All fair arguments, and I would disagree with most of them, but the important thing is changing the code safely. If you want to replace it I have no problem with that, just don't replace it to add features. You guys have had this plexus-utils replacement thing sitting around for over a year now. Finish that first and then move on to features.
>
> Another question: is there an eclipse-aether release in sight?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>>>>
>>> Not at all, those are good questions actually!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't care so much about
>>>>
>>> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>>>>
>>> Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our repo again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and later to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively. That sucks big times and hinders the daily development.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the long-term.
>>
>>
>> If you want to change it because you feel like it, or don't like that it's at Codehaus that's fine it's your time. Provided it doesn't harm the core I can't tell you what to do with your time and how you want to spend it. But there is proof to the contrary, at least with Kristian, that it's not hard to effectively maintain or release plexus-utils. In fact, I believe it's easier because he can make a fix, release it on a dime, and re-incorporate it back into Maven and not wait 72 hours.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>>>>
>>>
>>> hugely complex refactoring etc.
>>>>
>>> Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for most of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm was even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I personally need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA, OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is utter broken currently.
>>>
>>>
>>> People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel build support.
>>>
>>> I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly.
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>> From: Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM
>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>>>>
>>> hugely complex refactoring etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
>>>>
>>> to spend the time elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
>>>>
>>> have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
>>>>
>>> caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
>>>>
>>> something like this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
>>>>
>>> more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
>>>>
>>> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place
>>>>>
>>> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
>>>>>
>>> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
>>>>>
>>> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> wdyt?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>
>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>> Cc:
>>>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>>
>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>>
>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>>
>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.
-- Buddha
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
well, I had some patches back then and I was asked to sign an obscure CLA (which I refused).
Also the license headers have been changed without any code changes, etc.
People without an iCLA on file did changes, etc. That kind of IP handling is just not good enough for an ASF project imo.
And given that most of the code originates from ASF projects I see no reason to not move back the parts we really need (IP cleaned of course).
You can call me picky, I can certainly live with that :)
Another question: is there an eclipse-aether release in sight?
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:44 PM
>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>>>
>>Not at all, those are good questions actually!
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't care so much about
>>>
>>*how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>>>
>>Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our repo again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and later to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively. That sucks big times and hinders the daily development.
>>
>>
>
>
>That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the long-term.
>
>
>If you want to change it because you feel like it, or don't like that it's at Codehaus that's fine it's your time. Provided it doesn't harm the core I can't tell you what to do with your time and how you want to spend it. But there is proof to the contrary, at least with Kristian, that it's not hard to effectively maintain or release plexus-utils. In fact, I believe it's easier because he can make a fix, release it on a dime, and re-incorporate it back into Maven and not wait 72 hours.
>
>
>>
>>I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>>>
>>
>>hugely complex refactoring etc.
>>>
>>Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for most of it.
>>
>>
>>Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm was even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I personally need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA, OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is utter broken currently.
>>
>>
>>People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel build support.
>>
>>I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly.
>>
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>>
>>From: Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM
>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>
>>
>>>
>>I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>>>
>>hugely complex refactoring etc.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
>>>
>>
>>>
>>Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
>>>
>>to spend the time elsewhere?
>>>
>>
>>>
>>I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
>>>
>>have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
>>>
>>caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
>>>
>>
>>>
>>These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
>>>
>>something like this.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>-Chris
>>>
>>
>>>
>>PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
>>>
>>more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
>>>
>>*how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place
>>>>
>>the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
>>>>
>>means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
>>>>
>>maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>wdyt?
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>LieGrue,
>>>>
>>strub
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>Cc:
>>>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>
>>tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>
>>org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>Kristian
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Jason van Zyl
>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>Founder, Apache Maven
>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>
> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Aleksandar Kurtakov <ak...@redhat.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kristian Rosenvold" <kr...@gmail.com>
> To: "Maven Developers List" <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:42:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
> 2012/8/30 Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>:
> > That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the
> > time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes
> > to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please
> > feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but
> > your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter
> > nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all
> > dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code
> > unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the
> > long-term.
>
> I do it, but mostly out of necessity. This stuff makes us bitch &
> quarrel and spend way to much energy on things that are neither fun
> or
> otherwise constructive; it's bad feng shui.
>
> So I say drop the stuff. Initially by replacing the trivial 90% with
> the easy replacements, probably by doing class-by-class replacements
> across the whole maven codebase.
>
> Now when it comes to core (and I suspect Xpp3Dom is one of the hard
> cases) we need to be more careful of leaking/not leaking the right
> things. But anyone who thinks we're going to be
> free of plexus dependencies within the next X years simply has no
> clue
> of how many plexus modules there are out there. So we can clean up
> some stuff and leave some of it; I say do the easy ones first. That
> *will* probably leave most modules with BOTH plexus-utils and
> maven-shared-utils as dependencies for quite some time. But heck,
> we're good at downloading ;]
If it ends up downloading single version of each of them I'll organize a party :).
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
>
> Kristian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
2012/8/30 Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>:
> That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the long-term.
I do it, but mostly out of necessity. This stuff makes us bitch &
quarrel and spend way to much energy on things that are neither fun or
otherwise constructive; it's bad feng shui.
So I say drop the stuff. Initially by replacing the trivial 90% with
the easy replacements, probably by doing class-by-class replacements
across the whole maven codebase.
Now when it comes to core (and I suspect Xpp3Dom is one of the hard
cases) we need to be more careful of leaking/not leaking the right
things. But anyone who thinks we're going to be
free of plexus dependencies within the next X years simply has no clue
of how many plexus modules there are out there. So we can clean up
some stuff and leave some of it; I say do the easy ones first. That
*will* probably leave most modules with BOTH plexus-utils and
maven-shared-utils as dependencies for quite some time. But heck,
we're good at downloading ;]
Kristian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>
> Not at all, those are good questions actually!
>
>
>> I don't care so much about
>> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>
> Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our repo again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and later to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively. That sucks big times and hinders the daily development.
>
That is simply not true. Kristian works on plexus-utils all the time, has never been hindered in the slightest and makes changes to the code all the time. Kristian if this is untrue then please feel free to correct me. You may not like where the code is, but your argument that you cannot effectively work on it is utter nonsense. If you naturally followed this argument to all dependencies and that you can't effectively leverage any code unless it's at Apache which is really really viable in the long-term.
If you want to change it because you feel like it, or don't like that it's at Codehaus that's fine it's your time. Provided it doesn't harm the core I can't tell you what to do with your time and how you want to spend it. But there is proof to the contrary, at least with Kristian, that it's not hard to effectively maintain or release plexus-utils. In fact, I believe it's easier because he can make a fix, release it on a dime, and re-incorporate it back into Maven and not wait 72 hours.
>
>> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>
>> hugely complex refactoring etc.
>
> Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for most of it.
>
>
> Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm was even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I personally need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA, OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is utter broken currently.
>
>
> People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel build support.
>
> I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>> I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>>
>> I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>> hugely complex refactoring etc.
>>
>> But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
>>
>> Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
>> to spend the time elsewhere?
>>
>> I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
>> have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
>> caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
>>
>> These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
>> something like this.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
>> more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
>> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place
>>> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>
>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
>>> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
>>> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>
>>> wdyt?
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>
>>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>
>>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
you look at, the more general your framework will be.
-- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
>I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
Not at all, those are good questions actually!
> I don't care so much about
> *how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
Well, that's exactly what it is about. Without having this source in our repo again (where it originally was before it got moved out to codehaus and later to some 'private' github repo), we cannot maintain maven effectively. That sucks big times and hinders the daily development.
>I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>hugely complex refactoring etc.
Actually the refactorings are not that huge. It's a 1:1 import swap for most of it.
Regarding the incremental build: This has nothing to do with Eclipse. I'm was even aware that they have a problem. This is really something I personally need as well - as do thousands of other maven users. My company build currently takes 5 minutes as it has 98 modules atm. Other projects I maintain/build regularely (OpenWebBeans, DeltaSpike, MyFaces, OpenJPA, OpenEJB, ...) are not that large, but it's really annoying to always need to clean a project and do all over again because the change detection is utter broken currently.
People had the same fear as some people started working on the parallel build support.
I think it is really worth a try to get incremental builds done properly.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>
>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
>
>I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
>hugely complex refactoring etc.
>
>But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
>
>Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
>to spend the time elsewhere?
>
>I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
>have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
>caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
>
>These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
>something like this.
>
>-Chris
>
>PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
>more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
>*how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
>
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place
>> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>
>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
>> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
>> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>
>> wdyt?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>> > To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>> >
>> > Well obviously given the current number of failing
>> > tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>> >
>> > I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>> > org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>> >
>> > Kristian
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Chris Graham <ch...@gmail.com>.
I'm going to take the risk of making a fool of myself by asking, but:
I see a lot of (proposed) work going on here about incremental compilation,
hugely complex refactoring etc.
But, I've got to ask, what's the benefit?
Or put another way, looking at the amount of effort, wouldn't it be better
to spend the time elsewhere?
I am aware of some of the issues that people like the eclipse foundation
have had with incremental compilation, so I'd approach this one with
caution. [From what I remember about it, anyway]
These are just questions that I'd ask myself if I was going to attempt
something like this.
-Chris
PS: I tend to approach things from a commericial point of view. I care far
more about function rather than form, that is, I don't care so much about
*how* something is done, I care greatly about *what* can be done.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place
> the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>
> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which
> means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate
> maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>
> wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> > To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
> >
> > Well obviously given the current number of failing
> > tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
> >
> > I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
> > org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
> >
> > Kristian
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I thought the problem is obvious as I got a few acks when we discussed it here on the list.
I've now updated the WiKi page to explain the problem
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If the compiler doesn't reliably detect changes, then it is a HUGE
> problem!
>>
>
> In what cases does that happen?
>
> Your document[1] doesn't indicate this is a problem.
>
> [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Incremental+Builds
>
>
>> All the later stages can only depend on the results of the previous ones.
> To not trigger a necessary rebuild is WAY worse than to rebuild a few classes
> too much.
>>
>> Exactly that is the reason why most people always use "mvn CLEAN
> install" all the time currently.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then
> I'm -1.
>>>>>
>>>> Please re-read my previous mail. We will NOT drop plexus-utils! We
> will just move maven core off it for most parts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, what's the difference exactly?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> we've had incremental build support in m2e forever
>>>>> You don't see most of the 'incremental' problems in
> m2 because the recompile already gets done by eclipse itself I assume. E.g. the
> maven-compiler-plugin until recently failed to detect cross-class relations and
> did only recompile the file which got changed. I changed that only recently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The compiler is not the problem, even for large code bases the compiler
> is incredibly fast. Profile your average build and it's not the compilation
> that's the bottleneck. But again I would argue you don't need to make
> drastic changes in the core to make incremental builds work. Some, but they are
> few.
>>>
>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>>>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark
> Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:49 PM
>>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement
> of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the
> two will almost certainly lead to problems.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
> binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1.
> I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly
> causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be
> done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you
> don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works
> right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've
> seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the
> core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code
> in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits.
> Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont
> affect user builds.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work
> anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need
> new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more
> progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures
> and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is
> perfectly possible as well of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>
>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>>>>>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark
> Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code
> go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real
> risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the
> work that's your prerogative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and
> behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly,
> and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the
> plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in
> the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code
> you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that
> for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from
> there then make any subsequent changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be
> fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping
> out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> If you initially are intending to change code in the core to
> accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and
> I'm -1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we
> should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it
> seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should
> relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>>
>>>> strub
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>>>
>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>>>
>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good
> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>
>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>
>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it
> will
>>>>>
>>>> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> come
>>>>>
>>>> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -- Thoreau
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
>>>
>>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>
> -- Shakespeare
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>
> If the compiler doesn't reliably detect changes, then it is a HUGE problem!
>
In what cases does that happen?
Your document[1] doesn't indicate this is a problem.
[1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Incremental+Builds
> All the later stages can only depend on the results of the previous ones. To not trigger a necessary rebuild is WAY worse than to rebuild a few classes too much.
>
> Exactly that is the reason why most people always use "mvn CLEAN install" all the time currently.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
>>>>
>>>
>>> binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1.
>>>>
>>> Please re-read my previous mail. We will NOT drop plexus-utils! We will just move maven core off it for most parts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, what's the difference exactly?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> we've had incremental build support in m2e forever
>>>> You don't see most of the 'incremental' problems in m2 because the recompile already gets done by eclipse itself I assume. E.g. the maven-compiler-plugin until recently failed to detect cross-class relations and did only recompile the file which got changed. I changed that only recently.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The compiler is not the problem, even for large code bases the compiler is incredibly fast. Profile your average build and it's not the compilation that's the bottleneck. But again I would argue you don't need to make drastic changes in the core to make incremental builds work. Some, but they are few.
>>
>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:49 PM
>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the two will almost certainly lead to problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1. I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>
>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>>>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>
>>> strub
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>>
>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>>
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>
>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
>>>>
>>> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
>>>>
>>> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> -- Thoreau
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
>>
>> -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
-- Shakespeare
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
If the compiler doesn't reliably detect changes, then it is a HUGE problem!
All the later stages can only depend on the results of the previous ones. To not trigger a necessary rebuild is WAY worse than to rebuild a few classes too much.
Exactly that is the reason why most people always use "mvn CLEAN install" all the time currently.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:11 PM
>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
>>>
>>
>>binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1.
>>>
>>Please re-read my previous mail. We will NOT drop plexus-utils! We will just move maven core off it for most parts.
>>
>>
>
>
>Hmm, what's the difference exactly?
>
>
>>
>>we've had incremental build support in m2e forever
>>>You don't see most of the 'incremental' problems in m2 because the recompile already gets done by eclipse itself I assume. E.g. the maven-compiler-plugin until recently failed to detect cross-class relations and did only recompile the file which got changed. I changed that only recently.
>>
>>
>
>
>The compiler is not the problem, even for large code bases the compiler is incredibly fast. Profile your average build and it's not the compilation that's the bottleneck. But again I would argue you don't need to make drastic changes in the core to make incremental builds work. Some, but they are few.
>
>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>>
>>From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:49 PM
>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>
>>
>>>
>>You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the two will almost certainly lead to problems.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1. I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>LieGrue,
>>>>
>>strub
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>________________________________
>>>>>
>>From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>>>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>wdyt?
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>LieGrue,
>>>>>>
>>strub
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>Cc:
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>Kristian
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>Jason
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>Jason van Zyl
>>>>>
>>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>>>
>>Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>>
>>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>> -- Paul Graham
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>Thanks,
>>>
>>
>>>
>>Jason
>>>
>>
>>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>Jason van Zyl
>>>
>>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>
>>Founder, Apache Maven
>>>
>>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>>
>>happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
>>>
>>elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
>>>
>>and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>-- Thoreau
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Jason van Zyl
>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>Founder, Apache Maven
>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
>
>> binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1.
>
> Please re-read my previous mail. We will NOT drop plexus-utils! We will just move maven core off it for most parts.
>
Hmm, what's the difference exactly?
>
>> we've had incremental build support in m2e forever
> You don't see most of the 'incremental' problems in m2 because the recompile already gets done by eclipse itself I assume. E.g. the maven-compiler-plugin until recently failed to detect cross-class relations and did only recompile the file which got changed. I changed that only recently.
>
The compiler is not the problem, even for large code bases the compiler is incredibly fast. Profile your average build and it's not the compilation that's the bottleneck. But again I would argue you don't need to make drastic changes in the core to make incremental builds work. Some, but they are few.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>> You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the two will almost certainly lead to problems.
>>
>> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1. I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
>>
>> Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
>>
>> At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>>> I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>>>
>>>
>>> To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
>>>
>>> BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>>>
>>> And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>>>
>>>
>>> My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>>>
>>> If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>>
>>>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>>
>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>>
>>>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>>
>>>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>>
>>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
>> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
>> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>>
>> -- Thoreau
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
> If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a
> binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1.
Please re-read my previous mail. We will NOT drop plexus-utils! We will just move maven core off it for most parts.
> we've had incremental build support in m2e forever
You don't see most of the 'incremental' problems in m2 because the recompile already gets done by eclipse itself I assume. E.g. the maven-compiler-plugin until recently failed to detect cross-class relations and did only recompile the file which got changed. I changed that only recently.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the two will almost certainly lead to problems.
>
>If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1. I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
>
>Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
>
>At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
>
>On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>>
>>
>> To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
>>
>> BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>>
>> And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>>
>>
>> My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>>
>> If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>>>
>>>
>>> So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>
>>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>>
>>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>>
>>>> wdyt?
>>>>
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>>
>>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>>
>>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>
>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Jason van Zyl
>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>Founder, Apache Maven
>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
>elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
>and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>
>-- Thoreau
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
You need to do one thing at time and not conflate the replacement of the plexus-utils code with anything else you want to implement. Mixing the two will almost certainly lead to problems.
If you are attempting to remove plexus-utils initially without a binary compatible drop-in replacement with code from Apache then I'm -1. I'm not going to change that position because I think you're needlessly causing problems. If you want to replace the code go for it, just do it safely.
Incremental builds are a separate matter all together and can be done in a branch, we've had incremental build support in m2e forever and you don't need to massively change the core at all to do it. In fact it works right now with the core as it is. Put a complete proposal together (I've seen the initial ideas) because if you think you need to drastically change the core for incremental builds I believe you are incorrect.
At any rate, one thing at a time. If you want to replace the code in plexus-utils with something else do that first as a separate, clear endeavor.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> I fear my perspective is pretty different.
>
>
> To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
>
> BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
>
> And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
>
>
> My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
>
> If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>>
>> If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>>
>>
>> So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>>
>>
>> I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>>
>>
>> I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>>
>>
>> If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>>
>>> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>>
>>> wdyt?
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>>
>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>>
>>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>>
>>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>
>> -- Paul Graham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I fear my perspective is pretty different.
To _not_ produce a 1:1 drop in replacement gives us a few benefits. Actually it doesn't matter which version maven itself uses as this wont affect user builds.
BUT it would _heavily_ affect users if their old builds wont work anymore because we dropped some ancient signature.
And there is a well cast technical reason for this change: I need new/improved functionality for the incremental build.
My proposal is to move maven itself to a much more progressive/improved version (thus off plexus-utils) but keep the old signatures and the original plexus-utils around for plugins which still uses it.
If a plugin likes to use the new maven-core-utils then this is perfectly possible as well of course.
LieGrue,
strub
>________________________________
> From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
>
>If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
>
>
>So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
>
>
>I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
>
>
>I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
>
>
>If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
>
>
>On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>>
>>maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>>
>>wdyt?
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>>>
>>Cc:
>>>
>>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>
>>Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>>
>>
>>>
>>Well obviously given the current number of failing
>>>
>>tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>>
>>
>>>
>>I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>>>
>>org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>Kristian
>>>
>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Jason van Zyl
>Founder & CTO, Sonatype
>Founder, Apache Maven
>http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>
> -- Paul Graham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
If you can create a drop-in replacement for the plexus-utils code go for it. I believe this exercise is of little value users and you run the real risk of introducing problems for no technical reason, but if you want to do the work that's your prerogative.
So much time was spent to preserve the existing signatures and behaviour in the container swap and this is not something to be taken lightly, and you should do what has been done in the past.
I think the path to do this if you want to get rid of the plexus-utils reference is to reduce the foot print to the classes being used in the core and then drop in that reduced JAR. Create a replacement with the code you've copied, reimplemented, improved yet binary compatible and test that for a while. Binary compatible in all respects, package and signature. And from there then make any subsequent changes.
I honestly am not overly concerned with plugins because they can be fixed relatively quickly, but doing low value changes in the core for swapping out one set of code for another is seriously playing with fire.
If you initially are intending to change code in the core to accommodate this change I see no technical reason for it, is dangerous and I'm -1.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
>
> maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
>
> wdyt?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
>> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>>
>> Well obviously given the current number of failing
>> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>>
>> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
>> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder & CTO, Sonatype
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
-- Paul Graham
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
While digging thru the plexus-utils usage I wonder whether we should place the maven-utils in maven-core or maven-shared.
maven-core doesn't yet have any maven-shared dependency it seems. Which means if we like to use them in maven-core as well we should relocate maven-shared-utils to the maven-3 core module.
wdyt?
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
> Well obviously given the current number of failing
> tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
>
> I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
> org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
>
> Kristian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Well obviously given the current number of failing
tests,maven-shared-utils is going nowhere right now ;)
I will do a test-migration and remove unused code in
org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io before we release.
Kristian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Actually there is atm no user at all (except maven-verifier).
We had quite some utility code in maven-verifier which got duped in plexus-utils, so I copied that over to maven-shared-utils.
I also moved most of the classes we wrote in the cleanroom plexus-utils rewrite in our sandbox to maven-shared-utils.
On top of that I applied changes by people who has an iCLA on file and the files clearly state
"Copyright The Apache Software Foundation"
I should note that all files got their headers replaced with "Copyright The Codehaus Foundation" in a bulk update on 2009-01-07 (without any line changed otherwise).
So I took the last version before and rewrote simple changes after that date myself.
Different plexus-utils versions clashes in plugins pretty often, so the goal is to replace it in maven-core, maven-shared and maven-plugins.
This would also make it much easier to contribute and release.
There are also some parts in plexus-utils which got forked out of other ASF projects but are not maintained well. E.g. Base64 where commons-io has a vastly better version already.
I already looked at quite some projects in maven-core and maven-shared and we actually already have many of those parts we need. I will gradually add more of them if needed.
So please do not remove anything right now - we will start a cleanup effort once we have maven-core, maven-shared and maven-plugins migrated over to maven-shared-utils.
Adding your Matcher changes is perfect of course. As is adding the 3 files you wrote (I attached them to MSHARED-236 but as you are the original author it's best you commit them yourself)
txs and LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>
> To: Maven Developers List <de...@maven.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:36 AM
> Subject: Removing unused code from maven-shared-utils
>
> Unless someone objects, I will reimplement/backport all the subtle
> fixes that have been added to DirectoryScanner/SelectorUtils in
> context of maven-shared-utils.
>
> Thereafter I think I'll test-port every single maven project that uses
> plexus-utils/directoryscanner and after THAT I'll delete *all* the
> unused code in
> maven-shared-utils org.apache.maven.shared.utils.io package.
>
> There are not many current users of maven-shared-utils, so I assume
> such a strategy would be ok ?
>
> Kristian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org