ace-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bram de Kruijff (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACE-316) Layout the OBR filesystem differently.
Date Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:02:16 GMT

    [ 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

Mime
View raw message