archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fabrice Bellingard" <belling...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Archiva 1.1 Roadmap
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:42:14 GMT
Nicolas,

concerning your "maven" managed repository: are you currently really doing
that with archiva? It seems indeed interesting, as it simplifies the
configuration of the settings.xml file. However, I have a couple of
questions:
- this means that this "maven" repository duplicates every artifact handled
in your other managed repositories, right? So when you browse artifacts in
Archiva, you see managed artifacts twice, don't you?
- do you use the same principle for snapshots repositories? I mean, metadata
files would conflict with release repositories, so you need another
"virtual" repository for snapshots.

Fabrice

On Feb 4, 2008 9:38 AM, nicolas de loof <nicolas@apache.org> wrote:

> Early version of archiva had on admin menu a "sync repository" entry.
>
> Not sure if the original idea was to manage a classical rsync-like miror
> or
> to isolate local cache for remote proxied repositories.
>
>
> I would suggest some "virtual" repository
>
> A simple example is my corporate use case : many user don't know maven
> well
> and have no idea what a repository is (and how to configure), so we have
> configured settings.xml to mirror all common repositories to the archiva
> instance : http://server/archiva/repository/maven
>
> The "maven" managed repository is an aggregate of proxied (central,
> java.net,
> jboss, ...) and managed ones : corporate builds, restricted jars (SUN
> apis,
> oracle driver) and sources bundles (missing in public repos)
>
> This repository, declared in archiva configuration as "managed" is NOT the
> one we have to manage ! It only is a facade to other managed and proxied
> repositories.
>
>
> Nico.
>
> > >
> > > One item I wanted to single out is the separation between managed
> > > repositories used for publishing and those used for caching artifacts
> > > from remote repositories. I don't think it makes much sense to have a
> > > managed repository that can do both.
> >
> >
> > a big +1 here :) a lot of people has been confused over this especially
> > when
> > there are quite a handful of repositories being managed.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This separation would allow us to have:
> > > * Provide indexing, browsing and search only for "publishing" (See
> foot
> > > note)
> > > * RSS feeds for new artifacts in published repositories.
> > >
> > > Foot note:
> > > Allowing to search proxied data is a broken idea - its an incomplete
> > > view of a remote repositories and when your dealing with tens of
> > > gigabytes of metadata and artifacts this becomes painful and slow.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I look forward to your comments.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > James Dumay
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks,
> > Deng
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message