[MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT #31

cstamas · 2022-06-20T12:46:30Z

Now that Maven is 3.2.5, no need for MAT anymore.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINSTALL-175

Now that Maven is 3.2.5, no need for MAT anymore.

pom.xml

olamy · 2022-06-21T10:20:02Z

-0
we reached some consensus few years back saying we will use only org.apache,maven namespace to hide everything happened.
And now we’re back on this?
And then to change again back to org.apache,maven namespace

slachiewicz · 2022-06-21T12:37:17Z

Let's imagine that we change package to o.a.m for resolver. It's like change like jakarta from javax. How this will look like? If we just change it, all old plugins will be broken. If we use our shared component - yes we can use reflections and our plugins may work. But what about everything else from community?

+1 here to PR - this simplify code and remove access to API via reflections

and maybe let's start discussion how to rename package on mailing list. This will tak years

cstamas · 2022-06-21T12:42:44Z

-0 we reached some consensus few years back saying we will use only org.apache,maven namespace to hide everything happened. And now we’re back on this? And then to change again back to org.apache,maven namespace

So I really don't understand your stance: MAT is needed to bridge between sonatype/eclipse package, but as prerequisite for plugin is raised to Maven 3.2.5, there is NO sonatype package in play anymore, hence, no need for MAT and it's non-trivial transitive dependencies (it pulls in bothj sonatype and eclipse resolver, plexus container default etc).

Where are we about to change to, is WIP currently, the new Maven 4 API, but obviously, it does not exists yet in Maven 3.2.5+ 😕

olamy · 2022-06-23T01:48:48Z

Let's imagine that we change package to o.a.m for resolver. It's like change like jakarta from javax. How this will look like? If we just change it, all old plugins will be broken. If we use our shared component - yes we can use reflections and our plugins may work. But what about everything else from community?

Correct I definitely like your comparison here javax. to jakarta
But except you missed to add then the next step will back to javax (well maybe javax.foo)
Because this will be case to change again to org.apache.maven once maven-resolver has been migrated.

The problem here is to have to switch to a package we know it will be removed because it's org.eclipse. package coming from a Apache source repo and deployed under the groupId org.apache.maven
The big mess is here, so the goal is to move away from this package because it simply doesn’t belong here.

Imagine if someone told you: we will remove javax. to javax.foo and in the middle for a bit of time there will be jakarta.

sounds like a waste of time?

+1 here to PR - this simplify code and remove access to API via reflections

maybe why not for our plugins (but still 0 as we know this package will be removed)
but for downstream plugin writers that's a waste of time. and keep changing stuff for no real added values (such jetty/jetty.project#8182 )

Why not removing all of this old stuff from m-artifact-transfer so downstream consumers will not pull old dependencies.

and maybe let's start discussion how to rename package on mailing list. This will tak years

no we have a big opportunity with maven 4.x

slachiewicz · 2022-06-23T04:26:08Z

apache/maven-artifact-transfer#20

olamy · 2022-06-23T04:32:39Z

apache/maven-artifact-transfer#20

almost 2 years later maybe it's now finally a good move to do....
I would approve such PR
but hey if you prefer javax. to jakarta. then back to javax just do it.
but frankly to me it just looks like wasting time changing packaging then back again...
Maybe it would be better to spend time adding real user facing improvements....
anyway it's your time guys and not time.

slachiewicz · 2022-06-23T04:41:04Z

@cstamas idea was to save us time and with few lines of code - drop m-a-t-p

mthmulders · 2022-06-28T15:13:37Z

pom.xml

    <javaVersion>7</javaVersion>
+    <mavenVersion>3.2.5</mavenVersion>
+    <aetherVersion>1.0.0.v20140518</aetherVersion> <!-- Maven bound -->


This is effectively a downgrade? From 1.1.0 to 1.0.0.v20140518?

Yes, because it aligns with the Aether version from Maven 3.2.5.

mthmulders · 2022-06-28T15:15:29Z

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/install/AbstractInstallMojo.java

+            {
+                File file = artifact.getFile();
+
+                // Here, we have a temporary solution to MINSTALL-3 (isDirectory() is true if it went through compile


This looks odd. We build against Maven 3.2.5 (see pom.xml) but this comment suggests a "proper solution" will be in place with Maven 2.1?

I lifted the relevant MAT code here, so this PR does not change "logic", it merely moves it into this plugin (that was before in MAT). So, just like in #15 "minimal change" is in place, that will subsequent PRs refine.

mthmulders · 2022-06-28T15:18:43Z

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/install/InstallFileMojo.java

-            buildingRequest = repositoryManager.setLocalRepositoryBasedir( buildingRequest, localRepositoryPath );
-
-            getLog().debug( "localRepoPath: " + repositoryManager.getLocalRepositoryBasedir( buildingRequest ) );
+            // "clone" session and replace localRepository


Suggested change

// "clone" session and replace localRepository

// "clone" Maven session and replace localRepository

michael-o · 2022-06-28T19:42:10Z

src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/install/InstallFileMojo.java

@@ -71,6 +73,7 @@
 public class InstallFileMojo
    extends AbstractInstallMojo
 {
+    private static final String LINE_SEP = System.getProperty( "line.separator" );


LS = System.lineSeparator()

olamy · 2022-07-01T05:36:38Z

As an Apache project we do not own the package org.eclipse.aether so we cannot promote the use of such package distributed in a org.apache.maven groupId.
This was supposed to be a temporary transitional phase.
It's now almost 7 years the project has been moved here. So as a transition phase we had enough time to change this aberration from our source code.
This usage should be dead already after so many years. It looks to moving backward with such change..
if the goal is remove some old dependencies we don't like (e.g the dependencies pulled by m-a-t) we can certainly exclude:

<artifactId>maven-artifact-transfer-maven-3.0.x</artifactId>

And even drop this module from our source code if we don't want to keep supporting it.
But the history of the source here at Apache is remove the usage of org.eclipse as a package we distribute which again is totally wrong and we cannot keep promoting.

cstamas · 2022-07-03T20:56:38Z

As an Apache project we do not own the package org.eclipse.aether so we cannot promote the use of such package distributed in a org.apache.maven groupId. This was supposed to be a temporary transitional phase. It's now almost 7 years the project has been moved here. So as a transition phase we had enough time to change this aberration from our source code. This usage should be dead already after so many years. It looks to moving backward with such change.. if the goal is remove some old dependencies we don't like (e.g the dependencies pulled by m-a-t) we can certainly exclude:
<artifactId>maven-artifact-transfer-maven-3.0.x</artifactId>
And even drop this module from our source code if we don't want to keep supporting it. But the history of the source here at Apache is remove the usage of org.eclipse as a package we distribute which again is totally wrong and we cannot keep promoting.

Stop spreading FUD man, you personally voted +1 on threads "[VOTE] Accept the Aether code into the Maven project" and also on "[IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver" on private ML (unsure could I link these as archives for private ML are not public). Hence, due those two before, I bet you got mails from thread "Trademark requests from Apache Maven regarding Aether" as well, also on private ML (same ML as those two before). In short, "distributing org.eclipse.aether" packages IS NOT WRONG, The Eclipse Foundation granted us usage of that namespace.

gnodet · 2022-07-04T07:01:14Z

-0 I'm quite hesitant on that one. I don't really see the benefit of dropping MAT now if the goal is to switch to the new API provided by apache/maven#703. If we keep this goal, I don't really see the point of switching to a get rid of MAT to switch to something else in a couple of weeks/months.

hboutemy · 2022-07-04T07:28:09Z

what I see is that we should enhance MAT index page https://maven.apache.org/shared/maven-artifact-transfer/ to explain the other objective = have a single API mapped over different implementations varying from Maven version to Maven version

hboutemy · 2022-07-04T07:33:23Z

another aspect I'd like to make explicit: where is MAT used beyond m-install/deploy-p?
which leads to a corollary: why do some plugins require to do this job themselves instead of letting m-install/deploy-p?

gnodet · 2022-07-04T07:41:46Z

another aspect I'd like to make explicit: where is MAT used beyond m-install/deploy-p?
which leads to a corollary: why do some plugins require to do this job themselves instead of letting m-install/deploy-p?

I think MAT would be de-facto deprecated whenever the new API is integrated.
MAT does a bit more than install / deploy, I think the main usage for MAT is the dependency collection / resolution.

cstamas · 2022-07-04T08:03:40Z

My problem with MAT and reason why I want to get rid of it ASAP is that it's unfinished (and as @gnodet says "does a bit more than install.deploy"). But is unfinished. I just want to cut it in root before it becomes "competing" with new API in any way, to prevent that someone start submitting PRs to "improve" or "finish" MAT. I just want to prevent any resource waste (human resource) by spending any amount of work on MAT, and focus on new Maven API.

slawekjaranowski · 2022-07-04T08:40:13Z

another aspect I'd like to make explicit: where is MAT used beyond m-install/deploy-p?

m-invoker-p for install goal

gnodet · 2022-07-04T09:44:34Z

another aspect I'd like to make explicit: where is MAT used beyond m-install/deploy-p?

m-invoker-p for install goal

Here's the full list or projects using MAT:

maven-archetype-plugin
archetype-common
maven-assembly-plugin
maven-changes-plugin
maven-dependency-plugin
maven-gpg-plugin
maven-invoker-plugin
maven-javadoc-plugin
maven-pmd-plugin
maven-project-info-reports-plugin
maven-remote-resources-plugin
maven-shade-plugin

olamy · 2022-07-04T09:47:14Z

As an Apache project we do not own the package org.eclipse.aether so we cannot promote the use of such package distributed in a org.apache.maven groupId. This was supposed to be a temporary transitional phase. It's now almost 7 years the project has been moved here. So as a transition phase we had enough time to change this aberration from our source code. This usage should be dead already after so many years. It looks to moving backward with such change.. if the goal is remove some old dependencies we don't like (e.g the dependencies pulled by m-a-t) we can certainly exclude:
<artifactId>maven-artifact-transfer-maven-3.0.x</artifactId>
And even drop this module from our source code if we don't want to keep supporting it. But the history of the source here at Apache is remove the usage of org.eclipse as a package we distribute which again is totally wrong and we cannot keep promoting.
Stop spreading FUD man, you personally voted +1 on threads "[VOTE] Accept the Aether code into the Maven project" and also on "[IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver" on private ML (unsure could I link these as archives for private ML are not public). Hence, due those two before, I bet you got mails from thread "Trademark requests from Apache Maven regarding Aether" as well, also on private ML (same ML as those two before). In short, "distributing org.eclipse.aether" packages IS NOT WRONG, The Eclipse Foundation granted us usage of that namespace.

I do not see really FUD and I'm prefectly aware of this acceptation of this temporary package naming. My point has nothing to do with the history on accepting some code. Please do not make confusion with my concern.

We created and agreed on m-artifact-transfer to hide all the previous package changes and the future changes.
I just see the package org.eclipse.aether as deprecated already even before m-artifact-transfer was created.
Again the current/previous package implementation is temporary and we will change it by a renaming from org.eclipse.aether to org.apache.maven. and we will provide a new API as well with 4.x
So plugins maintainers do not have to worry about the real internal and obviously m-artifact-transfer will be de-facto deprecated when we will have maven 4.x api and/or resolver package renaming.
If your concern is the possible m-artifact-transfer. Frankly since this has been created there were not many really....
And we can definitely mark it as deprecated.. But I see those changes as just created confusions for plugin maintainers as this will change again.

cstamas · 2022-07-04T10:35:10Z

I do not see really FUD and I'm prefectly aware of this acceptation of this temporary package naming. My point has nothing to do with the history on accepting some code. Please do not make confusion with my concern.

Am glad you finally woke up after 7 years, but this is still wrong: please point me at any email from Eclipse Foundation where they state we got temporary [org.eclipse.aether] package namespace grant only.

We need to get rid of old, over-engineered, over-abstracted, half-assed and semi finished projects, to be able to move forward. They are all just burden, many of them are not touched for 10ish years, many are still maven2 stuff (!) and are totally neglected. I'd be really grateful if you'd lend a hand on this "spring cleaning" work instead.

olamy · 2022-07-04T11:02:10Z

I do not see really FUD and I'm prefectly aware of this acceptation of this temporary package naming. My point has nothing to do with the history on accepting some code. Please do not make confusion with my concern.

Am glad you finally woke up after 7 years, but this is still wrong: please point me at any email from Eclipse Foundation where they state we got temporary [org.eclipse.aether] package namespace grant only.

not sure why you are mentioning this but this is not my point about a permanent or temporary grant.
I'm just mentioning the fact I find obvious a project hosted at Apache use the corresponding package.
if it takes time to change it fair enough we are all volunteers with different bandwidth to work on this.
But my point is just related to hiding this as this has already changed and will change again.

We need to get rid of old, over-engineered, over-abstracted, half-assed and semi finished projects, to be able to move forward. They are all just burden, many of them are not touched for 10ish years, many are still maven2 stuff (!) and are totally neglected. I'd be really grateful if you'd lend a hand on this "spring cleaning" work instead.

I'm happy to get rid of this once we have finalised the package change or the maven 4.x api.

cstamas · 2022-07-07T10:13:26Z

Superseded by #32

Drop MAT

c507694

Now that Maven is 3.2.5, no need for MAT anymore.

cstamas requested review from michael-o and slachiewicz June 20, 2022 12:46

cstamas self-assigned this Jun 20, 2022

michael-o reviewed Jun 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

pom.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fix scopes

c24e909

michael-o reviewed Jun 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

pom.xml Show resolved Hide resolved

cstamas changed the title ~~Drop MAT~~ [MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT Jun 20, 2022

cstamas marked this pull request as ready for review June 20, 2022 15:33

olamy mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2022

[MDEPLOY-295] Drop MAT apache/maven-deploy-plugin#25

Closed

olamy mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2022

Drop MAT jetty/jetty.project#8182

Merged

mthmulders reviewed Jun 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

michael-o requested changes Jun 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into drop-mat

084caf8

slachiewicz approved these changes Jul 3, 2022

View reviewed changes

Clean up use of LS

51bc6fc

cstamas closed this Jul 7, 2022

cstamas deleted the drop-mat branch July 7, 2022 10:13

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT #31

[MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT #31

cstamas commented Jun 20, 2022 •

edited

olamy commented Jun 21, 2022

slachiewicz commented Jun 21, 2022

cstamas commented Jun 21, 2022

olamy commented Jun 23, 2022 •

edited

slachiewicz commented Jun 23, 2022

olamy commented Jun 23, 2022

slachiewicz commented Jun 23, 2022

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

michael-o Jun 28, 2022

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

cstamas Jul 3, 2022

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

michael-o Jun 28, 2022

olamy commented Jul 1, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

hboutemy commented Jul 4, 2022

hboutemy commented Jul 4, 2022

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

slawekjaranowski commented Jul 4, 2022

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

olamy commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

cstamas commented Jul 4, 2022

olamy commented Jul 4, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 7, 2022

	// "clone" session and replace localRepository
	// "clone" Maven session and replace localRepository

[MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT #31

[MINSTALL-175] Drop MAT #31

Conversation

cstamas commented Jun 20, 2022 • edited

olamy commented Jun 21, 2022

slachiewicz commented Jun 21, 2022

cstamas commented Jun 21, 2022

olamy commented Jun 23, 2022 • edited

slachiewicz commented Jun 23, 2022

olamy commented Jun 23, 2022

slachiewicz commented Jun 23, 2022

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o Jun 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cstamas Jul 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mthmulders Jun 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

michael-o Jun 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

olamy commented Jul 1, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 3, 2022 • edited

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

hboutemy commented Jul 4, 2022

hboutemy commented Jul 4, 2022

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 4, 2022 • edited

slawekjaranowski commented Jul 4, 2022

gnodet commented Jul 4, 2022

olamy commented Jul 4, 2022 • edited

cstamas commented Jul 4, 2022

olamy commented Jul 4, 2022

cstamas commented Jul 7, 2022

cstamas commented Jun 20, 2022 •

edited

olamy commented Jun 23, 2022 •

edited

cstamas commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

cstamas commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

olamy commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited