You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to npanday-dev@incubator.apache.org by John Fallows <jo...@kaazing.com> on 2011/08/03 15:41:43 UTC
Requesting your insights for NPANDAY-411
Folks,
I'm planning to investigate a fix for NPANDAY-411 that would allow us to
specify versions as properties and successfully resolve the dependency
transitively.
o https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NPANDAY-411
Based on previous discussions about the issue when it was originally
reported, I understand that this behavioral difference occurs because we are
approximating Maven dependency behavior in NPanday and that there is a
longer-term perfect solution for this. I'd like to understand what might be
involved in updating our diverged implementation to be more compliant, as
well as better understanding what is involved in a complete uptake of full
compatibility with Maven dependency management.
Can anyone shed some light on this to help me understand where in the code I
should be focusing attention?
tc,
-john.
--
>|< Kaazing Corporation >|<
John Fallows | CTO | +1.650.960.8148
444 Castro St, Suite 1100 | Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
Re: Requesting your insights for NPANDAY-411
Posted by John Fallows <jo...@kaazing.com>.
Thanks Brett, that's a great start.
I'll take a closer look at these parts of the code and get back to the list
if there are more questions.
tc,
-john.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> There are a few cases (mostly in ProjectDaoImpl) where we need to change:
> - reading the model directly with a ModelReader (replace with
> ProjectBuilder)
> - grabbing a POM directly with Wagon (replace with ArtifactResolver)
>
> I've made some improvements, particularly related to snapshots.
>
> The attempts I've made to improve the rest in the past have generally led
> to me deciding it would be more practical to just remove RDF altogether. It
> turns out to be quite a rabbit hole though :) It definitely needs to be
> done, it just flows on through a number of components. I think there is a
> branch that investigated this in part.
>
> Is that enough to go on?
>
> - Brett
>
> On 04/08/2011, at 1:41 AM, John Fallows wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I'm planning to investigate a fix for NPANDAY-411 that would allow us to
> > specify versions as properties and successfully resolve the dependency
> > transitively.
> >
> > o https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NPANDAY-411
> >
> > Based on previous discussions about the issue when it was originally
> > reported, I understand that this behavioral difference occurs because we
> are
> > approximating Maven dependency behavior in NPanday and that there is a
> > longer-term perfect solution for this. I'd like to understand what might
> be
> > involved in updating our diverged implementation to be more compliant, as
> > well as better understanding what is involved in a complete uptake of
> full
> > compatibility with Maven dependency management.
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light on this to help me understand where in the
> code I
> > should be focusing attention?
> >
> > tc,
> > -john.
> > --
> >> |< Kaazing Corporation >|<
> > John Fallows | CTO | +1.650.960.8148
> > 444 Castro St, Suite 1100 | Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>
>
>
>
>
--
>|< Kaazing Corporation >|<
John Fallows | CTO | +1.650.960.8148
444 Castro St, Suite 1100 | Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
Re: Requesting your insights for NPANDAY-411
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
There are a few cases (mostly in ProjectDaoImpl) where we need to change:
- reading the model directly with a ModelReader (replace with ProjectBuilder)
- grabbing a POM directly with Wagon (replace with ArtifactResolver)
I've made some improvements, particularly related to snapshots.
The attempts I've made to improve the rest in the past have generally led to me deciding it would be more practical to just remove RDF altogether. It turns out to be quite a rabbit hole though :) It definitely needs to be done, it just flows on through a number of components. I think there is a branch that investigated this in part.
Is that enough to go on?
- Brett
On 04/08/2011, at 1:41 AM, John Fallows wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm planning to investigate a fix for NPANDAY-411 that would allow us to
> specify versions as properties and successfully resolve the dependency
> transitively.
>
> o https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NPANDAY-411
>
> Based on previous discussions about the issue when it was originally
> reported, I understand that this behavioral difference occurs because we are
> approximating Maven dependency behavior in NPanday and that there is a
> longer-term perfect solution for this. I'd like to understand what might be
> involved in updating our diverged implementation to be more compliant, as
> well as better understanding what is involved in a complete uptake of full
> compatibility with Maven dependency management.
>
> Can anyone shed some light on this to help me understand where in the code I
> should be focusing attention?
>
> tc,
> -john.
> --
>> |< Kaazing Corporation >|<
> John Fallows | CTO | +1.650.960.8148
> 444 Castro St, Suite 1100 | Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter