ace-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcel Offermans (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (ACE-97) Replace OBR implementation with Felix OBR
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:44:13 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Marcel Offermans updated ACE-97:
--------------------------------

    Affects Version/s:     (was: 0.8.0-incubator)
    
> Replace OBR implementation with Felix OBR
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACE-97
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97
>             Project: ACE
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: OBR
>            Reporter: Steve Siebert
>            Priority: Minor
>   Original Estimate: 3h
>  Remaining Estimate: 3h
>
> I have a need to have n OBRs available to the ACE provider, one of which will be one
or more Apache Archiva repositories.  In a previous thread, we discussed that the current
ACE implementation of the OBR services are tied to its implementation, so at a minimum the
API would need to be split from its implementation (purpose on that thread was a look at reusing
the service API to write a new store implementation for Archiva).  However, what is the general
feeling about looking at using the Felix OBR subproject to expose an "OBR federation" to ACE?
 Basically with this approach, we would gain some functionality in ACE and remove the need
to maintain the local implementation.  Also, given Felix's historical ties to RFC 112, ACE
would be in a better position to "convert" to the OBR specification once it is ratified by
the OSGi group.
> Thoughts?

--
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

Mime
View raw message