Jason van Zyl wrote:
An applications use of a repository represent real and tangible examples of expected utility - i.e. actual functional requirements.
Component deployment and an applications use of a repository are irrelavent;
Sure "get me a versioned artefact of a particular type" is a privative operation and around this we can establish specific requirements. But should this be considered in isolation of a higher-level requirement to "get me the latest artefact of a particular type"? We can look up and see common requirements including "get me the set of relationships for this artefact" and so on and so on as you move across different abstractions. However, when look at requirements from the actual usage point of view we quickly notice idiosyncrasies – for example - the difference between physical types (e.g. a jar file) and logical types (e.g. a plugin that actually maps to physical type). The point is that the real requirements are coming from the repository enabled applications – and drilling down from this perspective will actually ensure that the end result meets actual needs.
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]