www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <jvan...@maven.org>
Subject Re: RE: Proposals
Date Fri, 07 Nov 2003 04:27:50 GMT
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 22:26, aok123@bellsouth.net wrote:
> <snip/>
> > 
> > Well, let's make sure that we get input from the httpd release folks before
> > we re-design the layout of the library.  I just want to make sure that we
> > have a consensus across projects that everyone can live with, not just Java
> > projects, and which works for the full spectrum of projects.
> > 
> > 	--- Noel
> I totally second that.  The repository concept should support the entire gambit of artifacts
that can be generated.  It must be language and application neutral hence very extensible.
 There should be some caution when deciding upon a rigid repository structure that must have
the artifact type as a path component.  Something tells me this could lead to trouble.

I honestly doubt that to be the case and time may tell, but so far I
haven't seen it as an obstacle insofar as Maven goes. Additionally the
format internally is configurable to Maven, as I assume you are speaking
of Maven, but have only exposed the one format for simplicity. Also any
sort of decoration upon the simple can be used for more sophisticated

> On a side note:
> Taging artifacts using attributes can help acheive this as well.  It's another potential
tool that could be very liberating to those designing the repository and its conventions.
 I would try to keep the file structure very generic while using artifact attributes and some
queriable engine to ask for the right kinds of artifacts.  

Possibly, but I don't think designing the layout for a repository
requires a grand engineering effort. I think a directory structure
requiring simple http as the base is simple and works. But simple is not
limited to my mind. I have thought about the case where a deployed
application is nothing more than a descriptor coupled with a mechanism
to pull all required artifacts together to enable the target system and
I haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that a directory
structure with http/s couldn't work.

> Both webdav/deltaV and directories can play a role here.  As you know you can associate
properties/attributes with artifacts using webdav.  You can also acheive this by using a directory
as the relational engine with a webserver as the artifact/content store.  Nice thing is, you
can wrap the JNDI around it all too and switch URL schemes to do different things: use LDAP
for relational queries on attributes and use http/ftp for content retrieval.  The neat thing
is we can use the protocol that best suites the activity.

For the base repository notion I would probably avoid any ancillary
tools as much as possible. I too want to build sophisticated systems but
I don't believe that requires an overly sophisticated repository.

> My $0.02

P.S paragraphs in your messages are coming out on one line without
wrapping which makes responding a little more difficult as I have to
stretch out your response across two monitors :-)

> Alex

Jason van Zyl

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society

View raw message