archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James William Dumay <ja...@atlassian.com>
Subject Re: Target architecture
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:07:46 GMT
Hey,
I have a feeling this should probably come later down the track once the
target architecture starts filling out.

James

On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 09:55 +1000, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 21/08/2008, at 6:21 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> 
> > No question, no violent reaction :)
> >
> > I'm totally agree with your proposal.
> >
> > About the plugin aspect of the webapp, it must be easy to add/remove a
> > plugin, so we need to look at the technology used for the rendering.  
> > I'm not
> > sure it's easy to use a plugin system with webwork. Will we continue  
> > to use
> > it? Will you migrate to something else? Will we use some ajax things?
> 
> I think plugins would be possible in any framework, but easier in some  
> than others. I think changing UI first is probably a good idea. IMO at  
> the least to struts2, but open to looking at something different :)
> 
> AJAX is important for simplifying/improving some of the pages, though  
> I don't think we need a 100% ajax based UI either.
> 
> Most important thing is keeping the separation between the rest of the  
> system.
> 
> > In
> > Continuum sandbox, I added a poc based on Flex with a plugin system,  
> > nothing
> > to modify, only a the plugin swf to add.Of course, I don't say that  
> > we must
> > migrate to Flex, it is only a possibility to look at.
> 
> Will be interesting to see once I get a chance to look :)
> 
> - Brett
> 
> >
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>  
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It's come up a couple of times about what the architecture of Archiva
> >> should be like, as there are a couple of things that we're not  
> >> happy with. I
> >> thought it'd be good to try and agree on what the "end point" might  
> >> be so
> >> that anyone wanting to move in that direction is free to do so.
> >>
> >> I took a stab at this here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~brett/archiva-target-architecture.png<http://people.apache.org/%7Ebrett/archiva-target-architecture.png

> >> >
> >>
> >> The key points:
> >> * moving the database, etc, out of the "base" application (so this  
> >> would be
> >> dependent on being able to operate based on the metadata/repository  
> >> API
> >> alone, which was the basis for the other thread)
> >> * moving towards a plugin architecture for as much as possible (so  
> >> while we
> >> might have 2 or 3 standard distributions, it should be possible to  
> >> easily
> >> assembly just the functionality you want)
> >> * clearly defined extension points (today, this is really just  
> >> consumers).
> >> Note this is for the Archiva system itself, obviously there are  
> >> similar
> >> points for the security, for example
> >>
> >> I haven't really dealt with the plugin aspect of the webapp/web  
> >> services
> >> where you might expose that in some pluggable fashion, nor  
> >> considered using
> >> a particular plugin architecture - we've got some way to go in  
> >> isolating the
> >> existing components before taking that step.
> >>
> >> Did I miss any important pieces?
> >>
> >> Other thoughts, questions, violent reactions? :)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Brett
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brett Porter
> >> brett@apache.org
> >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>
> >>
> 
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> 


Mime
View raw message