river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Maven repository Entry was Re: Codebase service?
Date Tue, 25 May 2010 14:12:01 GMT
I agree with Patrick on this point.  It almost certainly requires a new type
of Entry such as Partick's CoordinateArtifactEntry example.  How many
developer hours might be lost because of some typo in a string that needs to
be structured and decoded in some way!  :-)

One thing that I didn't see (can someone point it out, using small words
please) how using Maven repositories makes is easier/better/faster/whatever
for someone?  Also, who is that someone, service developers or the support
teams for those services?

I've been keeping an eye on the recent conversations about this and the
codebase service and didn't see the bit that said "If we swapped to Maven
repo, it would be better because..."  I'm not saying it's not there, I just
can't/didn't see it.

I'm not anti-Maven, I'm a Maven newbie (at best).  I'd just like to be clear
on what problem this change is trying to solve.

Also, Peter (I think) made the comment about providing an upgrade path for
those on Jini 2.1.  Is it the intention that using Maven will remain
entirely optional, or will having a Maven repo become a requirement for
using River services?



On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Patrick Wright <pdoubleya@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Yes, we can use an Entry, or as Chris pointed out, if we annotate
> MarshalledInstance's using a new Maven URL schema we can extract that info
> and make it available via MarshalledServiceItem (An abstract class that
> extends ServiceItem).
> >
> > I dont think a new Maven URL schema has actually been proposed? Why
> wouldnt we just use a String attribute in an Entry that is of the form
> groupId:artifactId:version:classifier?
> What I don't like about this is that it makes the client a little more
> fragile--we would essentially be sniffing a string for a certain
> format, which, if it matched, would indicate it is a Maven coordinate.
> If this is in a separate type of Entry (e.g. CoordinateArtifactEntry
> or so) then we are reacting to a type of entry, not to a format which
> needs to be documented, etc.
> Patrick

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message