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 purposes. > 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 -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org 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
