Nicolas, concerning your "maven" managed repository: are you currently really doing that with archiva? It seems indeed interesting, as it simplifies the configuration of the settings.xml file. However, I have a couple of questions: - this means that this "maven" repository duplicates every artifact handled in your other managed repositories, right? So when you browse artifacts in Archiva, you see managed artifacts twice, don't you? - do you use the same principle for snapshots repositories? I mean, metadata files would conflict with release repositories, so you need another "virtual" repository for snapshots.
Fabrice On Feb 4, 2008 9:38 AM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Early version of archiva had on admin menu a "sync repository" entry. > > Not sure if the original idea was to manage a classical rsync-like miror > or > to isolate local cache for remote proxied repositories. > > > I would suggest some "virtual" repository > > A simple example is my corporate use case : many user don't know maven > well > and have no idea what a repository is (and how to configure), so we have > configured settings.xml to mirror all common repositories to the archiva > instance : http://server/archiva/repository/maven > > The "maven" managed repository is an aggregate of proxied (central, > java.net, > jboss, ...) and managed ones : corporate builds, restricted jars (SUN > apis, > oracle driver) and sources bundles (missing in public repos) > > This repository, declared in archiva configuration as "managed" is NOT the > one we have to manage ! It only is a facade to other managed and proxied > repositories. > > > Nico. > > > > > > > One item I wanted to single out is the separation between managed > > > repositories used for publishing and those used for caching artifacts > > > from remote repositories. I don't think it makes much sense to have a > > > managed repository that can do both. > > > > > > a big +1 here :) a lot of people has been confused over this especially > > when > > there are quite a handful of repositories being managed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This separation would allow us to have: > > > * Provide indexing, browsing and search only for "publishing" (See > foot > > > note) > > > * RSS feeds for new artifacts in published repositories. > > > > > > Foot note: > > > Allowing to search proxied data is a broken idea - its an incomplete > > > view of a remote repositories and when your dealing with tens of > > > gigabytes of metadata and artifacts this becomes painful and slow. > > > > > > Anyway, I look forward to your comments. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > James Dumay > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Deng > > >
