continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin van den Bemt <>
Subject Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:34:48 GMT
For me the most important point is group security (user is member of groups it has access to).
I currently have a highly modified continuum 1.0.3 running, where group membership is in place
credentials are passed in through httpd. So login using continuum is completely disabled.

And don't know if it is used in the current version yet : the maven-scm wagon provider. I
depend on 
that heavily in the setup we use continuum in, since we don't have very simple web access
to the cvs 
repositories (it's security is handled by another application, using session based security
of the http standards).

If appreciated I can help out.


Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I was going to try and wrap my head about what needed to get wrapped
> up for a 1.1 release of continuum this week when I got to talking to
> emmanuel this morning.
> I had been under the impression that we were getting near a point that
> we might want to polish things up and cut a 1.1 release but emm was
> thinking that we ought to have another big push for new features
> before we start polishing things up.  So I told him I would mention
> our talk and see what kinda interest we got from people on new
> features and who might want to tackle what in the short term, or if we
> wanted to put some things out into the longer term bin.
> One of the major things that I had been thinking we would push off to
> the 1.2 release was the profiles.  Its a slightly overridden term as
> it has little to do with maven profiles, but in my mind at least the
> profiles were going to be 1/3 of a trinity by which builds could be
> setup to run.
> The trinity being: profile (maven instance, env vars, maven profiles,
> jdk instance, etc), temporal ( scheduled cron, when dependency
> changes, scm activity, etc) and the project group (bundle of
> projects).  I was figuring that those three things taken together
> ought meet the requirements for building what, where and when.  It
> would be a matter of setting up the permutations of those three
> components, for example: 2 profiles, 1 schedule, 1 project group would
> make 2 instances of schedulable FOO.
> Anyway, I digress...profiles would be one large feature that would be
> wonderful to have in continuum, sooner the better.  But it would be
> pretty massive effects on the codebase.  So massive that I would think
> we ought to consider splitting up the DefaultContinuum object into the
> workflows that have been kicked around, making things like 'Add
> Project To Project Group' extensible by users so they can trigger any
> other processes they might want running on those events.  Trygve has
> some definite ideas in this area, perhaps using the plexus-spe code.
> The actions in continuum have been a first pass attempt at starting to
> break things out of the DC object which is pretty big atm.
> If we were going to rip the top off of the DefaultContinuum object and
> add/modify in the profile concepts into the store then we really ought
> to clean up the whole store api which is more painful to work with
> then it really should be.  joakim and I had a lot of success with
> structuring things nicely in the plexus-security jdo stores and we
> could probably apply a ton of the concepts there in terms of api to
> the continuum-store and make it scads easier to work with.
> and on and on.
> I agree with Emmanuel that since 1.1 as it currently stands is not
> backwards compatible (I think) with the old database we ought to just
> add in what we need now...But doing this will definitely move out a
> 1.1 release into the new year...and is that something we want to do?
> I dunno really, personally I would be cool with adding in profiles and
> refactoring the core chunks of continuum up now and get it over with,
> but does anyone else have anything to say on the matter?  I know we
> have had a lot more interest recently by folks like rahul and
> christian on participating, would you guys be interested in taking on
> some of these challenges with us?  Theres nothing like ripping through
> the guts of code to really get involved :)
> thoughts?  should we open this out to the users list maybe?
> jesse

View raw message