archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin <>
Subject About some refactoring
Date Sat, 02 Sep 2017 08:06:13 GMT

after reading a lot of code and tickets the last days I would like to propose some 
refactoring changes: 

- One change and I think good to handle would be to switch from
  to java.nio.Path for all the code.
  Currently these are mixed (new code uses mostly Path) and leads to confusion and needs always

  conversions when accessing new code from old one and vice versa.

The other one is more challenging but may be implemented step by step.
- After reading the code and (and dependent
tickets) I 
  think it would make sense to separate the code that is maven specific from the archiva interfaces
/ main classes.
  - First, there is one thing I missed: Main interfaces for a managed and remote repository
     -> the classes used are beans from the repository-admin module 
     -> Maybe there are other beans from repository-admin used. I think these should be
extracted to interfaces too.
     -> I would put them to the "archiva-repository-layer" module, or do you think there
is a separate module necessary?
  - Separate other modules like archiva-indexer into archiva and maven specific modules 
     -> I would create an -api module for these and move the archiva specific part / interfaces
to the api module

  Problems here:
  - Can we start with a interface that represents the current managed/remoterepository-Beans,
or do we have to
     find a more abstract one? (what other types of repositories may be implemented in the
future, and what do they need?)
  - The maven repository model / indexes assume the content is stored in the file system,
do we need to keep this 
    more abstract, or make sure, that the already existing RepositoryContent interfaces are
used? Or will repositories always
    have content / indexes in the filesystem?
  - I'm not sure about the role/purpose of archiva-model and the code generation. I do not
know the history of this project, so 
     you may clarify this. Is code generation considered best practice here and should be
used more often?
     Is it primarily used for configuration objects? 

Olivier, you created the ticket and maybe you can tell, what you had in mind, or tell something
about what is more historic and
what is best practice.

So I'm for a pragmatic evolutionary approach. I will try to push small commits and start with
interfaces that mainly represent
what we already have. Consider my next commits to master as proposals. If you think this goes
into the wrong direction, tell me.



View raw message