ace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcel Offermans (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (ACE-97) Replace OBR implementation with Felix OBR
Date Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:00:29 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12932023#action_12932023
] 

Marcel Offermans commented on ACE-97:
-------------------------------------

ACE uses an OBR mainly as a source to get bundles (and possibly other artifacts) from. The
internal ACE repositories only store meta data about these artifacts, not their actual content.
That means that it should not be hard to extend the "import artifact" features in ACE to allow
you to import from more than one repository.

Work on the Vaadin UI is coming along nicely and I would suggest that we try adding a feature
there to allow you to select a repository from a list of configured ones. This could be as
simple as a list of URLs, or maybe we need a little bit more, such as the type of repository
if not all of them are OBRs. That way we can easily support any repository that can list its
content and give us URLs for each artifact.

For this to work I don't even think we need to split the API and implementation (although
I'm not in any way against doing that if it makes sense).

> Replace OBR implementation with Felix OBR
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACE-97
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-97
>             Project: Ace
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 0.8.0, 1.0.0
>            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.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message