archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r582987 [1/3] - in /maven/archiva/trunk: archiva-base/archiva-consumers/archiva-consumer-api/ archiva-base/archiva-consumers/archiva-consumer-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/archiva/consumers/ archiva-base/archiva-consumers/archiva-core-...
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:42:13 GMT
Thanks.

On 09/10/2007, at 5:57 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:

> Good questions.
> I think I'm genetically predisposed to short commit messages.
>
> a) Replacing ArchivaRepository with appropriate configuration  
> object (be it managed or remote)
> b) Due to filed bugs...
>    * Ones surrounding updating of the configuration and not seeing  
> the change active.
>       The duality of repositories presented bad usages.
>       Updates in the configuration wasn't propogated to those  
> components that used the ArchivaRepository.
>       Bad local references to ArchivaRepository objects that were  
> no longer valid. etc...
>    * Ones surrounding the metadata updates.
>       There is 3 places in the code that updates metadata now.
>       Need to merge these pieces of code together.
>    * Bad usage of Layouts in the consumers, ignoring layout rules.
>       This is the old C/C++ pattern.  Give someone a simple "out"  
> and they take it, not realizing the implications.
>       Well, the layout utils were a juicy "out" that caused bad  
> code, bad assumptions, and bad handling.
> c) Taking the layout utils and wrapping them away (so that they  
> can't be abused) inside of a RepositoryContent object makes the use  
> of a repository more reliable.  No more shortcuts available to the  
> consumers.
>
> - Joakim
>
> Brett Porter wrote:
>> I haven't reviewed this commit in detail, but can you explain:
>>
>> a) what actuallly changed (is this *just* replacing  
>> ArchivaRepository instances with relevant configuration objects?)
>> b) why was this needed? (I very deliberately didn't make this  
>> change when I made the other changes)
>> c) why does the other detection proposal depend on it? (I know I'm  
>> dragging my feet on responding, but I have started reviewing the  
>> work)
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 09/10/2007, at 12:07 AM, joakime@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: joakime
>>> Date: Mon Oct  8 15:07:39 2007
>>> New Revision: 582987
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=582987&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Finishing the Repository split work that brett started.
>>> ArchivaRepository has been removed from model.
>>> This work was needed before repository layout/detection proposal  
>>> work is started.
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Brett Porter - brett@apache.org
>> Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/
>>
>
>
> -- 
> - Joakim Erdfelt
>  joakim@erdfelt.com
>  Open Source Software (OSS) Developer

--
Brett Porter - brett@apache.org
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/

Mime
View raw message