[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13630069#comment-13630069
]
Bram de Kruijff commented on ACE-316:
-------------------------------------
Seems I was too quick.. the current OBR can also hold non-bundles and we
actually support that through the webui for property files. So it seems we will
need to support additional parameters, at least a filename to support current
functionality at this point. That would then be an optional parameters on POST
and ignored for bundles.
However, now we are getting close to the R5 Repository Service specification
and the question arises whether or not we should actually just support
requirest and capabilities being specified by the client that creates a
resource (aka artifact).
Thoughts?
> Layout the OBR filesystem differently.
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACE-316
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-316
> Project: ACE
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: OBR
> Reporter: Marcel Offermans
> Assignee: Bram de Kruijff
>
> Currently, the OBR uses a single folder to store all artifacts. That does not
> scale too well as OS specific directory limits might interfere. We should
> implement a more hierarchical storage format, such as: <BSN>/<version> or
> even one where each part of the BSN becomes a folder.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
