archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joakim Erdfelt <>
Subject Re: purpose of repository configuration in the database?
Date Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:12:22 GMT
Brett Porter wrote:
> Joakim - any thoughts on these 2 additional questions? I'd like to
> finish tidying this section up soon.
> Cheers,
> Brett

Not sure what constitutes the 2 additional questions.
But here's the background on the decision.

The database was always viewed as *the* source for all information that
is pertinent to Archiva.
The configuration pieces were viewed not as a model or datasource, but a
bootstrap to take a configuration from disk, and populate the database.

The reporting would use the database.

The repositories in the database are intentionally kept neutral, so that
the future consumer to auto-adjust embedded <repositories> sections
within pom files to the Archiva repository itself.

Yes, currently the database tracks more fields than are used.
But that will change rapidly post Archiva 1.0, when the auto-repo-adjust
consumer kicks in and has to start tracking *all* repo ids to the map-to
id specified in a configuration screen somwhere (that's the primary
reason it was postponed, the need for a configuration screen)

Also, the field for the source of the entry in the database will start
to take on a more important role, as it can identify if it was manual,
from configuration, or from a pom file. (some examples)

I am against removing of the repository information in the database, as
this will needlessly complicate reporting in the future.
I am for removing the need for a configuration model, and would prefer
that the database persistence and the configuration pieces utilize the
same model.

- Joakim

View raw message