archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bflaherty <>
Subject Re: Archiva Consumers question
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:33:01 GMT

I find some the these comments inappropriate and unprofessional.

Joakim Erdfelt-2 wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>> Well, since you asked :)
>> On 17/10/2007, at 2:10 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>>> ArchivaArtifactConsumer is an abstract-dealing-with-artifacts consumer.
>>> RepositoryContentConsumer is for files.
>>> A file that isn't an artifact can be *.xml, *.sha1, *.md5, 
>>> maven-metadata.xml, bad content, poorly named content, etc.
>>> Would it be better to state the phase/scan instead?
>>> RepositoryContentConsumer becomes -> RepositoryScanConsumer
>>> ArchivaArtifactConsumer becomes -> DatabaseScanConsumer
>> These seem better, though there is still some question over even these 
>> names. I suggest following through on Wendy's questions before jumping 
>> ahead with anything.
>>> And I would rather make this change now (yes Brett, I see you there) 
>>> and not have to deal with backwards compatibility issues post 1.0 "in 
>>> the wild".  This time (right now) is the best time to make this 
>>> change.  After the 1.0 release is just going to add misery and pain 
>>> to this process.  Now is the sweet spot.  We could make the change 
>>> post 1.0 but it wouldn't be a change, it would just be another 
>>> band-aide.   Make the change now.   Did you know that making the 
>>> change now would take less than an hour, including testing.  I think 
>>> that Now is a good time.  Now is the winter of our discontent.  Right 
>>> now, hey, its your tomorrow.  Right now, C'mon (Brett), its 
>>> everything.  Right now, catch a magic moment, do it, right here and 
>>> now.  It means everything.  Its right now, oh, tell me what are you 
>>> waiting for, turn this thing around. :-)
>> I know you're somewhat kidding here, but I'm not quite sure how much, 
>> so I'll say it anyway :)
> I am not kidding, make this change now.
> I'll do it. It's no big deal.
>> I do not agree that 1.0 is some miracle milestone of inflexibility.
>> For two reasons:
>> a) whatever in the wild milestone you are referring to should have 
>> been at the point of beta-1, as I said in the last mail
>> b) it's bad thinking that things can't change after 1.0
> That sounds reasonable, and a statement not based on fear of change, but
> ...
>> Frankly, I would prefer that development was done in the same fashion 
>> whether it's 0.0.1-alpha-0, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.1, 2.0 or Archiva 2008. 
>> Simple, minimal public API exposure that allows maintaining 
>> compatibility and the ability to refactor implementation details 
>> within a module.
> This statement contradicts your previous one.
> What we now want to change now is a public API.
> I do not want to fall into the same trap that maven fell into when it 
> comes to "maintaining compatibility", we have far too much in maven that 
> exists solely for "maintaining compatibility" that is complete and utter 
> cruft.
> We are in that situation because of 2 major factors.
> 1) A hurry up and get a release out mindset.
> 2) A fear of changing the new APIs before a final (non-beta, non-RC, 
> release)
> Now is the perfect time to correct this.
> Lets do it now.
> Lets put it up for a vote now.
>> Let's just define what the acceptable extension points for Archiva 1.0 
>> are (probably consumers, so maybe you've found the one example where 
>> it might be difficult!), document them, and commit to maintaining them 
>> and move forward in that way.
>> - Brett
> -- 
> - Joakim Erdfelt
>   Open Source Software (OSS) Developer

View this message in context:
Sent from the archiva-dev mailing list archive at

View raw message