Mailing-List: contact archiva-dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: archiva-dev@maven.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <14293357.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:35:06 -0800 (PST)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?D=C3=A1rio_Oliveros?= <oliveros@cpqd.com.br>
To: archiva-dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: Help on how Archiva consumers work
In-Reply-To: <475FB8E5.9020205@exist.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <14272457.post@talk.nabble.com> <475F980E.3080607@exist.com>
 <14292430.post@talk.nabble.com> <475FB8E5.9020205@exist.com>


Thank you for letting me contribute with such a nice project. I appreciate
it.
BTW do you happen to have any code style formatter profile for Eclipse
Europa ? I noticed Archiva's is a little bit different from Java Convention
profile and I could not find it anywhere.
Thanks.


Maria Odea Ching-2 wrote:
>=20
> Okey dokey, thanks a lot Dario!  :-)
>=20
> -Deng
>=20
> D=C3=A1rio Oliveros wrote:
>> Good to hear from you.
>>
>> I had made some code changes before getting your response back and
>> surprisingly I was on the right track by working on pretty much the same
>> steps as you've suggested in the first place. The only difference was
>> regarding the UnprocessedArtifactPredicate to where I added a new
>> condition
>> for checking whether whenProcessed date is before lastModified instead o=
f
>> using snapshot verification. Besides I changed the else statement of
>> ArtifactsProcessedConstraint by adding the same verification as shown
>> previously:
>> whereClause =3D "whenProcessed =3D=3D null || (whenProcessed !=3D null &=
&
>> whenProcessed < lastModified)";
>> In your third step, I went for the date checking instead of checksum.
>>
>> Anyway it looks like your second solution is better since it tends to be
>> cleaner than the first one.
>> I will take a look and let you know as soon as I can. Once I fix the
>> issue,
>> I will post the patch for your analysis.
>>
>> Thank you so much for your support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maria Odea Ching-2 wrote:
>>  =20
>>> Hi Dario,
>>>
>>> I think the solution you've proposed would work.. to implement it, thes=
e=20
>>> are probably what you need to change in Archiva:
>>>
>>> 1. update the UnprocessedArtifactPredicate
>>>     - add the constraint to get the SNAPSHOT artifacts as you've=20
>>> mentioned (there is a 'snapshot' field in the ArchivaArtifactModel whic=
h=20
>>> flags whether the artifact is a snapshot or not, though using this woul=
d=20
>>> return all snapshots -- unique & non-unique)
>>>
>>> 2. update UnprocessedArtifactPredicate
>>>     - add check if artifact isProcessed() OR isSnapshot() for the=20
>>> condition the artifact needs to satisfy
>>>
>>> 3. update ProjectModelToDatabaseConsumer
>>>     - in the statement if( hasProjectModelInDatabase(...) ) is=20
>>> satisfied, the project model/pom file should be verified against the=20
>>> existing project model (in the db) if there were updates or changes mad=
e=20
>>> to it (maybe via the lastModified date or via its checksum). If there=
=20
>>> are changes, then the existing project model must be removed from the d=
b=20
>>> and the new project model shall be added.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've also thought of another way to tackle this issue..
>>>
>>> You could just update the DatabaseCleanupRemoveProjectModelConsumer to=
=20
>>> add checking for changes in the project models/pom files of those=20
>>> artifacts that have already been processed. If the project model has=20
>>> been changed, just remove the project model from the db and update the=
=20
>>> ArchivaArtifactModel's "whenProcessed" field to NULL so that it would=
=20
>>> qualify in the UnProcessedArtifactPredicate(false) constraint. The othe=
r=20
>>> thing that needs to be done is to update the JdoDatabaseUpdater's=20
>>> update() method -- just switch the lines updateAllUnprocessed() and=20
>>> updateAllProcessed() inside it. updateAllProcessed() should be executed=
=20
>>> first  before updateAllUnprocessed() in order to capture the updates=20
>>> performed in DatabaseCleanupRemoveProjectModelConsumer.
>>>
>>> More thoughts/suggestions anyone? :-)
>>>
>>>  =20
>>> Thanks,
>>> Deng
>>>
>>>
>>> D=C3=A1rio Oliveros wrote:
>>>    =20
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to understand why a processed artifact does not have
>>>> update-db-project consumer in case of a non-unique SNAPSHOT project
>>>> (please
>>>> refer to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-622 for more information)=
.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for bringing this up is that the database is not being
>>>> updated
>>>> accordingly when a non-unique SNAPSHOT project with dependency version
>>>> changes is deployed once again to Archiva repository. Even though it
>>>> contains differences compared to the previous one, it's considered
>>>> processed
>>>> already and therefore not updated. It looks like a bug in my opinion
>>>> and
>>>> I
>>>> would like to contribute for this fix.
>>>>
>>>> Should I change the query constraint for unprocessed artifacts
>>>> (ArtifactsProcessedConstraint(false)) so it also retrieves the
>>>> non-unique
>>>> SNAPSHOT projects or add a new consumer to processed artifacts for
>>>> database
>>>> update ?
>>>>
>>>> Any tips or pointers would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> D=C3=A1rio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  =20
>>>>      =20
>>>
>>>    =20
>>
>>  =20
>=20
>=20
>=20

--=20
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Help-on-how-Archiva-con=
sumers-work-tp14272457p14293357.html
Sent from the archiva-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.