I agree with Brett about moving the DAV Url to a specific entry, as it
requires some specific handlign of GET as Joakim exposed to be compatible
with no-so-compliant Dav clients.
Based on this, if we access the repository as Dav via
/webdav/{repoId}/{path}, and map the /repository/{repoId}/{path} to a new
Get servlet, wy couldn't we combine layout detection with specific URLS ?
I mean /repository/{repoId}/{path} can detect legacy vs default maven layout
easily based on number of "/" in the path. If the apt path (for example)
overlaps with another supported layout, we simply need to provide an
alternative /apt/{repoId}/{path}. "repository" would then simply be a
reserved keyword for "autodetect requested type".
2007/6/5, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Splitting up this discussion ...
First is the "detection" of clients.
Archiva has to manage not only the artifact, but also the pom/model
version too.
Example:
A maven 2 client can request either of these format URLs.
http://machine.com/repository/internal/commons-lang/poms/commons-lang-2.1.pom
http://machine.com/repository/internal/commons-lang/commons-lang/2.1/commons-lang-2.1.pom
On maven 2, these can both be of model version 4.0.0 and it'll work.
On maven 1, these have to be model version 3.0.0 to work.
Oh if only the client could identify itself, then wouldn't be a problem.
:-)
The reason for the "/get/{implementation-id}/{layout-path}" is to
clearly identify the intent of the client, and
compensate/migrate/regenerate/translate the requested resource for the
client. It is clear, not overloaded.
As it stands now, the bidirectional layout has a tough time with maven 1
layout requests of non-typical artifact types (seen commonly in
corporate environments). The lack of a 1::1 relationship between file
extension and artifact type makes things even more difficult for
"detection".
In short, I thoroughly dislike the idea of detecting the serving layer
based on path information.
I see it as a band-aide, a short term solution, one that will cause a
mess of spaghetti code in the Repository servlet.
When we move to other artifact providing concepts, yum/apt/osgi, etc...
there is tremendous overlap on the path structure, so much so that this
detection route is just a dead-end to me.
- Joakim
Brett Porter wrote:
> I agree. Any reason we can't use detection?
>
> Also, any reason why the handler for downloading from the /repository/
> can't be this get servlet instead of dav servlet? We probably don't
> want to add new ways to download from the repository for the same
> reason we removed /proxy/. I realise you can only map one servlet, but
> the servlet could delegate all operations other than get() to the dav
> implementation.
>
> Anyway, not really sure of the implementation, just don't like 'get'
> as a name :)
>
> I also don't agree on the repository storage format. I don't see any
> reason this can't be configurable, and I think it's useful to be able
> to run on an existing repo, or should we ever change the m2 format in
> future.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 06/06/2007, at 4:18 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> The "/get/{implementation-id}/{layout-path}" is an interesting option.
>>
>> Where would you place the target managed repository in such an URL ?
>>
>> The only thing I don't like in this solution is that it doesn't work
>> based
>> on an auto-detection of the requested format. I'd prefer the servlet to
>> search for an implementation that accepts the requested path, so that
>> the
>> current "/repository/id/{layout}" would be valid for any supported
>> layout.
>>
>>
>> 2007/6/5, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> We have 2 concepts that are co-mingled right now.
>>>
>>> 1) Getting an artifact from Archiva.
>>> 2) Deploying an artifact to Archiva.
>>>
>>> This proposal should focus on #1, Getting an artifact from Archiva.
>>> (As for #2, that can remain the realm of the current DavServlet
>>> implementation)
>>>
>>> I always pictured this as a new GetArtifactServlet.
>>>
>>> Lets say we have it mapped to the "/get" servlet mapping.
>>> The following urls would all point to the same artifact.
>>>
>>> : Basic Format for maven 1 clients.
>>>
>>>
http://hostname.com/archiva/get/maven1/org.apache.maven.wagon/jars/wagon-scm-1.0-alpha-3.jar
>>>
>>> : Basic Format for maven 2 clients.
>>>
>>>
http://hostname.com/archiva/get/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/wagon-scm/1.0-alpha-3/wagon-scm-1.0-alpha-3.jar
>>>
>>>
>>> : (Advanced / Future Use) apt/deb serving.
>>>
>>>
http://hostname.com/archiva/get/apt-deb/org.apache.maven.wagon/wagon-scm-1.0-alpha-3.deb
>>>
>>> : (Advanced / Future Use) yum/rpm serving.
>>>
>>>
http://hostname.com/archiva/get/yum-rpm/org.apache.maven.wagon/wagon-scm-1.0-alpha-3.rpm
>>>
>>>
>>> Using a new servlet, would essentially decouple the filesystem
>>> format/layout as a requirement.
>>> Archiva can assume maven 2 format for the filesystem, and serve the
>>> artifact to the client in the way that is requested. After all the
>>> artifact
>>> information is now in the database. It makes sense to me to do it
>>> this way.
>>>
>>> The idea with the URL format is that
>>> "/get/{implementation-id}/{artifact-reference-implementation-format}"
>>>
>>> The implementation id can be a plexus role-hint on the
>>> implementation of
>>> this GetArtifactServlet.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> - Joakim
>>>
>>> nicolas de loof wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> To enhance archiva-1.0 support for maven1, I'd like to introduce a
>>> layer
>>> between DavServlet and repository proxies connectors.
>>> As Joakim suggested, this is the scope of the Dynamic Artifact Serving
>>> Layer
>>> in archiva roadmap.
>>>
>>> I propose this API :
>>>
>>> public interface ArtifactServingLayer
>>> {
>>> /**
>>> * Retrieve an artifact path in the repository based on the
resource
>>> string.
>>> */
>>> public String getResourcePath( String resource );
>>> }
>>>
>>> The serving layer is responsible of finding the resource in the
managed
>>> repository, with any required logic or temporary content, and to give
a
>>> repository-related path back to the DavServer.
>>>
>>> The default implementation could simply use proxies-connectors to
>>> find the
>>>
>>> resource, and some interceptors / proxies could add features, like
>>> converting on-the-fly from a layout format to the managedRepository
>>> layout,
>>> handle artifact relocation when a non-POM artifact is requested, or
>>> anything
>>> we discover to be usefull.
>>>
>>> What's your opinion ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Software (OSS) Developer
