archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Archiva Consumers question
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:43:08 GMT
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 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

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.

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

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

Mime
View raw message