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: Scope/Phasing
Date Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:45:29 GMT
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 00:42, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> Building in the ability to query meta-data attributes on artifacts
> is all that I'm personally asking.  This is not over complicating
> the repository concept.  It's a natural progression.

It most certainly is an unecessary facitly at the base-line level. The
query mechanism is not something that is needed at the base-line level. 

> 100% agree but don't stop the evolution of an idea because it may
> seems to add more complexity. 
> I am convinced that
> > the discussion of the repository need not delve into topics of service
> > deployment or repository aware applications. This is entirely within the
> > domain of the implementors of these systems and I am one them so I speak
> Right these are use case examples that support the need for meta-data 
> Attributes in the repo.

I don't think it does if you mean at a base-line level you will required
a mechanism like LDAP or WebDAV. Is that what you're trying to say? If
so then I couldn't disagree more.

Anything information required to deploy an application which may require
information about given artifacts can be stored in the repository
itself. If you are saying that attributes for artifacts are to be
primitives in the repository then I certainly disagree.

> > from some practical experience in the matter. Plexus and Merlin may both
> > have their own component deployment model and repository aware
> > applications and I have certainly thought of these things and I have yet
> > to be hindered with what currently exists. Additionally there is no way
> > you could ever standardize on these things given the existence of Pico,
> > Nano, Loom, Plexus, Carbon, Merlin, Spring, SOFA, Fractal just to name a
> Nothing is impossible.

It's simply never going to happen and there is no need for it to. I
highly recommend a reading of Syperski's Component Software. It serves
not only as a technical guide but clearly gives reasons why multiple
standards exist and why each one can thrive.

> > few of the existing containers and component models. There is simply no
> > chance you're going to get them all to converge and you don't have to.
> That's a very gloomy picture for the confused user who spends as 
> much time trying to find the right container.  It has become a real 
> mess out there for the user.

I don't think so at all. Competition is a good thing, a great thing in
fact. You can't stop and there will always be different implementations
for personal, political, and practical reasons.


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