Thanks for the explanation. I'm OK with moving on with it. The point of suggesting a separate repo is for the PR owner's convenience and for follow-up maintainers. Sorry if that didn’t resonate; I'm OK with either way.
Yufei On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:50 AM Pierre Laporte <pie...@pingtimeout.fr> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 1:42 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the summary. > > > > * Given that a solution based on Gradle ExecFork or Gretty would only > serve > > > Polaris devs, and would not be usable by users, it does not seems to > be a > > > good fit for the overarching goal. > > > > Could you clarify the specific feature gaps of ExecFork and Gretty > compared > > to the proposed plugin? > > > I feel like I have answered that question multiple times already though. > Those two options only work with Gradle. They cannot be used by Maven > users. I do not think it is a good idea to exclude a substantial number of > Enterprises projects. > > Besides, a ExecFork based approach would likely not be transferable to > other projects. It would be implemented in Polaris build files directly. > > A concrete test case or example would help validate the difference. > > > > Note that the Gretty solution you offered is inapplicable. Gretty cannot > run Quarkus servers. > > On a separate note, would it make sense to host this plugin in a standalone > > repo? From the PR, it appears to be quite self-contained. > > > > There is a contradiction here. On one hand, you are saying that you would > rather have an ExecFork based implementation. And that implementation > would live directly in Polaris build files themselves, so in the > `apache/polaris` repository. And on the other hand you ask about putting > the current implementation in a different repository altogether. > > What benefits are you expecting from moving the Apprunner into a dedicated > repository? > > Pierre >
