On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 22:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <snip/>
> > 
> > Well, let's make sure that we get input from the httpd release folks before
> > we re-design the layout of the library.  I just want to make sure that we
> > have a consensus across projects that everyone can live with, not just Java
> > projects, and which works for the full spectrum of projects.
> > 
> >     --- Noel
> I totally second that.  The repository concept should support the entire 
> gambit of artifacts that can be generated.  It must be language and 
> application neutral hence very extensible.  There should be some caution when 
> deciding upon a rigid repository structure that must have the artifact type 
> as a path component.  Something tells me this could lead to trouble.

I honestly doubt that to be the case and time may tell, but so far I
haven't seen it as an obstacle insofar as Maven goes. Additionally the
format internally is configurable to Maven, as I assume you are speaking
of Maven, but have only exposed the one format for simplicity. Also any
sort of decoration upon the simple can be used for more sophisticated

> On a side note:
> Taging artifacts using attributes can help acheive this as well.  It's 
> another potential tool that could be very liberating to those designing the 
> repository and its conventions.  I would try to keep the file structure very 
> generic while using artifact attributes and some queriable engine to ask for 
> the right kinds of artifacts.  

Possibly, but I don't think designing the layout for a repository
requires a grand engineering effort. I think a directory structure
requiring simple http as the base is simple and works. But simple is not
limited to my mind. I have thought about the case where a deployed
application is nothing more than a descriptor coupled with a mechanism
to pull all required artifacts together to enable the target system and
I haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that a directory
structure with http/s couldn't work.

> Both webdav/deltaV and directories can play a role here.  As you know you can 
> associate properties/attributes with artifacts using webdav.  You can also 
> acheive this by using a directory as the relational engine with a webserver 
> as the artifact/content store.  Nice thing is, you can wrap the JNDI around 
> it all too and switch URL schemes to do different things: use LDAP for 
> relational queries on attributes and use http/ftp for content retrieval.  The 
> neat thing is we can use the protocol that best suites the activity.

For the base repository notion I would probably avoid any ancillary
tools as much as possible. I too want to build sophisticated systems but
I don't believe that requires an overly sophisticated repository.

> My $0.02

P.S paragraphs in your messages are coming out on one line without
wrapping which makes responding a little more difficult as I have to
stretch out your response across two monitors :-)

> Alex

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

Reply via email to