avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Repository listing
Date Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:16:10 GMT

Yannick Menager wrote:

> Exactly my thoughts....
> Roughtly my ideia is to have a repository, which can contain 3 category
> of 'Modules'
> Components ( of which can be a normal Component, or an API Component, or
> a ComponentGroup )
> Applications
> Projects ( That's for large scale projects which will produce components
> and applications ) 

Component and Project are notions I'm OK with.  Application is something 
which IMO is an artefact of a project. I'm even ready to say that 
"Application" .. is the encroaching evil [1].  An application is 
something that we must consciously consider as a non-reusable unit.  
I.e. an application should view as a transient view on a composite 
component model arriving out of a project.  The artefacts associated 
with an application (containers, installers, other structural 
dependencies ...) are all things that are for all practical purposes 
temporary artefacts.  The long term value is in the components and 
services that are delivered.  The short term satisfaction is through an 

My view would be we have

* group: 

  one instance of a group within a repository, multiple
  components with a group, multiple projects with a group

  * component - an identifiable artifact subset within
    a group

  * project - a project is something described within a
    group but may aggregate components from other groups
    by reference

    * application - an identifiable artifact within a

How to express this in a way then enables autodiscovery ... don't know.
Needs more thinking.

Cheers, Steve.

[1] encroaching evil - In the Third Age of Middle-earth, the allied
forces of good were locked in mortal combat with the encroaching evil
of Sauron's armies which marched out of Mordor determined to retrieve
the One Ring for their dark master.

... just for context ;-)


> the internals of those are to be *everything* that might be of 
> interest relating to a project, even to the point of including the 
> possibility to associate/attach emails, posts, etc...
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>> Yannick Menager wrote:
>>>> Yes that would be easy to put in place, all that's really needed is 
>>>> a standard XML format to describe projects, components, etc... I'm 
>>>> starting to work on that first :)
>>>> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>> Wouldn't the Maven project.xml work? 
>> IMVHO - no.
>> Two reasons:
>> 1. The Maven project.xml defines an artifact from the viewpoint of 
>> building the artifact.  It does not define a product.  There is 
>> significant overlap but at the same time there are quantum 
>> differences.  I have been playing with (but never completed) a 
>> product.xml and counterpart service.xml.  The notions I've been 
>> focussing on are "product" == "physical tool to do something" whereas 
>> "service" == "usage of a tool by a provider to deliver a value 
>> proposition".  The combination of the two has the ability to deliver 
>> a "solution model".
>> 2. In defining a new abstraction - don't depend on a schema that you 
>> don't control.
>> Steve.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Stephen J. McConnell

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

View raw message