archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: Target architecture
Date Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:16:00 GMT
Wasn't much feedback on this - and we are now doing pieces of work  
towards it which everyone seems happy with.

Any objections to using this as the way forward? If so I'll check the  
source files in somewhere if so.


On 14/08/2008, at 5:41 PM, Brett Porter 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:
> 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 Porter

View raw message