ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Archie Cobbs" <>
Subject Re: Ivy RoundUp Repository - feedback requested
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:59:19 GMT
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Xavier Hanin <>

> It depends how you consider the roundup repository. I think its intent is
> to
> be a kind of meta repository: it contains metadata helping to build an
> actual repository. Maybe what's confusing is that archie suggest to use it
> as a repository directly. IMO this is required only until we can get
> enough
> support to have a good hosting for the actual repository. Then both the
> meta
> repository and the actual repository would make sense: the meta repository
> is helpful for people who want to create their own repository, and easier
> to
> update than a repository made by hand. But it isn't used directly from
> Ivy.
> The actual repository is the only thing that is used by mere users.

There are actually three possibilities...

   1. Builder Repository: repository contains ivy.xml and builder.xml
   files only, and the user is required to use the builder resolver, whereby
   the actual artifacts are downloaded and extracted as necessary at resolution
   2. Builder Repository + Artifact repository: same as above, but you
   configure your resolver with the "resourceURL" attribute (which overrides
   the normal resource URLs), which points to the Artifact repository
   containing all of the ZIP/TGZ files that you need to download. The Artifact
   repository could be local or community/online. This means we don't have to
   rely on each/every project's server being reliable.
   3. Build-your-own-Repository: we would add a new ant task in the Ivy
   RoundUp build.xml that actually executes all the builder.xml
   download/extract instructions for every module in the repository to get all
   the artifacts and then combines those artifacts with the ivy.xml files to
   create a normal Ivy repository.

Correlating with Xavier's comments: #3 == "meta repository" whereas #1 =
"repository directly".

The important concept here is *separation of the meta-data from the data*.

Also important is *not forcing the requirement for a high capacity, high
bandwidth public server*.... I'll repeat my claim that this is important
based on the evidence that nobody has yet volunteered to replace Ivyrep.

If someone is willing to host a normal repository, then options #2 or #3
make sense. If not, then #1 makes sense.  But it is flexible enough to work
in any/all of these ways. I think we should start with #1 and then we can
move to #2 or #3 if and when someone volunteers the additional servers and
disk space.


Archie L. Cobbs

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message