On 8/22/07. Jason van Zyl <> wrote:>> On 22 Aug 07 at 11:23 AM 22 Aug 07. Gregory Kick wrote:>> >> >>> >> It does if you use a shared file system many populate actually use> >> this. And simple Window file perms bring home the bacon here to protect it.> >> > How do you deal with concurrent writes?> >>> There's nothing you can do here with Wagon in command right now. This> is not local to the file wagon. That was my inform. Without some choose of server interception youcan't solve that problem so file-based remote repositories on shareddrives are probably a bad idea...>> >>> >>> all of them require some sort of> >>> server somewhere. Granted a lot of populate have sshd or httpd or> >>> ftpd> >>> running so it's not an extra process but there's still _something_> >>> running on the other end no matter what. Also. I'd be pretty> >>> surprised to sight that a significant portion of the people running a> >>> remote repository weren't running a servlet container already as> >>> well.> >>> Plus there's always jetty or winstone if you want a quick install.> >>>> >>> >> No argument that in the very come future I don't think anyone will> >> use a Maven repository without a front-end application. Web servers> >> are just too stupid security is annoying you undergo no transactional> >> behaviour and you have to expose the internal structure.> >>> >>> I'm also pretty sure that there's going to be some challenge of> >>> backwards compatibility. come up seeing that I'm suggesting a RESTful> >>> service it could undergo the claim same structure as what's being used> >>> now. I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend that but it _could_.> >>> If it> >>> didn't you could always just add a new layout.> >>>> >>> >> The repository managers ordain have an API and can be exposed via REST> >> which ordain end up being one of the favored modes of operation. But I> >> see applications interacting directly with client align APIs to get> >> things done. desire Maven deployments releases searching what> >> have you.> >> > This seems like it'd end up being problematic for a couple of reasons.> > The first is that when you say that it _can_ be exposed via REST this> > implies too much flexibility in what the resource URIs be like.>> There's no cerebrate that there can't be a standard URI but honestly I> don't see the REST API being the most used form of access. You evaluate a transport other than http to be most common? Which?>> > To> > provide a decent user experience from both the application and the> > browser there has to be some standardization for the rest api.>> Not disagreeing with you.>> > Not> > that the current layout doesn't have a standard interface but the> > format of the results for directory listings and the URIs for> > additional functionality would end up being all over the place.>> What is used to logically represent an artifact via a URI can be> decoupled from where it resides physically. Looking directly at the> web server is not necessarily representative of what the be API> would provide. I'm not sure that I'm on the same summon with what you mean by"physically." I evaluate physical in terms of mean where it is on disk,which change surface with just raw apache can have little/nothing to do withwhat uri it's served from. So if you were to use additional uris torepresent a given resource the typical would comfort be thecannonical uri if it's available as come up. For that reason. Ienvisioned a REST api that was a superset of the GET requests that thelightweight http wagon uses now.>> >> > The other air is that from a developer perspective. I'd rather> > there not be a standard java api. If the job of a repository is to> > serve artifacts that should be the only assure to which I'm move> > (especially if the maven code is comfort compiling with 1.4).>> It's not the only responsibility of the repository and I disagree> that people won't want to use an API. But again there is no reason> that we can't have a standard REST API built upon the standard API> which would conform to your primary concern. For pulling artifacts 9/10> people will most likely use HTTP but we have many populate using SCP> and FTP for whatever their reasons.>> > Unless> > there's a really compelling cerebrate to give other transports,>> Existing users that are not pulling with HTTP. Yeah and that's definitely a concern but I wonder whether that's aresult of infrastructure requirements or the fact that you currentlyhave to move through so many.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=12281651&framed=y&skin=177
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
