[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12932023#action_12932023
]
Marcel Offermans commented on ACE-97:
-------------------------------------
ACE uses an OBR mainly as a source to get bundles (and possibly other
artifacts) from. The internal ACE repositories only store meta data about these
artifacts, not their actual content. That means that it should not be hard to
extend the "import artifact" features in ACE to allow you to import from more
than one repository.
Work on the Vaadin UI is coming along nicely and I would suggest that we try
adding a feature there to allow you to select a repository from a list of
configured ones. This could be as simple as a list of URLs, or maybe we need a
little bit more, such as the type of repository if not all of them are OBRs.
That way we can easily support any repository that can list its content and
give us URLs for each artifact.
For this to work I don't even think we need to split the API and implementation
(although I'm not in any way against doing that if it makes sense).
> Replace OBR implementation with Felix OBR
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACE-97
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97
> Project: Ace
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.8.0, 1.0.0
> Reporter: Steve Siebert
> Priority: Minor
> Original Estimate: 3h
> Remaining Estimate: 3h
>
> I have a need to have n OBRs available to the ACE provider, one of which will
> be one or more Apache Archiva repositories. In a previous thread, we
> discussed that the current ACE implementation of the OBR services are tied to
> its implementation, so at a minimum the API would need to be split from its
> implementation (purpose on that thread was a look at reusing the service API
> to write a new store implementation for Archiva). However, what is the
> general feeling about looking at using the Felix OBR subproject to expose an
> "OBR federation" to ACE? Basically with this approach, we would gain some
> functionality in ACE and remove the need to maintain the local
> implementation. Also, given Felix's historical ties to RFC 112, ACE would be
> in a better position to "convert" to the OBR specification once it is
> ratified by the OSGi group.
> Thoughts?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
