helping to implement MRM-1256

[Marc Lustig]

can I help to implement this?

What "event ideas for 1.3" was Brett refering to ?
any existing issue?

I would prefer a generic solution to implement extension-point, in the way I proposed it.
One or another consumer may be used perhaps for one or another task.
But consumers run only on repo-scan, right?
Action events triggered on artifact-deployment are a different thing and not less important.

[brettporter]

On 13/10/2009, at 12:25 AM, Marc Lustig wrote:

>
> can I help to implement this?

of course!

>
> What "event ideas for 1.3" was Brett refering to ?
> any existing issue?

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARCHIVA/Event+Framework
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-976
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/archiva/branches/MRM-976/branch-working-notes.txt?revision=706263&view=markup

Unfortunately work on this stalled some time back.

>
> I would prefer a generic solution to implement extension-point, in  
> the way I
> proposed it.
> One or another consumer may be used perhaps for one or another task.
> But consumers run only on repo-scan, right?
> Action events triggered on artifact-deployment are a different thing  
> and not
> less important.

I'd say if you've got an idea to go ahead with that - we can look at  
it early and often and look to incorporate it. The above, if picked up  
again, can still support it afterwards. Thanks!

Cheers,
Brett

[Marc Lustig]

brettporter wrote:

On 13/10/2009, at 12:25 AM, Marc Lustig wrote:

>
> can I help to implement this?

of course!

>
> What "event ideas for 1.3" was Brett refering to ?
> any existing issue?

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARCHIVA/Event+Framework
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-976
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/archiva/branches/MRM-976/branch-working-notes.txt?revision=706263&view=markup

Unfortunately work on this stalled some time back.

>
> I would prefer a generic solution to implement extension-point, in  
> the way I
> proposed it.
> One or another consumer may be used perhaps for one or another task.
> But consumers run only on repo-scan, right?
> Action events triggered on artifact-deployment are a different thing  
> and not
> less important.

I'd say if you've got an idea to go ahead with that - we can look at  
it early and often and look to incorporate it. The above, if picked up  
again, can still support it afterwards. Thanks!

Cheers,
Brett

thanks Brett for the references.
So you mean the consumers-architecture could be and should be replaced by a generic event-framework, that also provides other extension-points like the ones I suggested?
That sounds pretty cool to me - but it's also a severe change - looks like a bunch of work ;-)
Perhaps we can share the work load? Would you like to go ahead and coordinate it?

[brettporter]

On 13/10/2009, at 1:02 AM, Marc Lustig wrote:

>
>
>
> brettporter wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13/10/2009, at 12:25 AM, Marc Lustig wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> can I help to implement this?
>>
>> of course!
>>
>>>
>>> What "event ideas for 1.3" was Brett refering to ?
>>> any existing issue?
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARCHIVA/Event+Framework
>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-976
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/archiva/branches/MRM-976/branch-working-notes.txt?revision=706263&view=markup
>>
>> Unfortunately work on this stalled some time back.
>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer a generic solution to implement extension-point, in
>>> the way I
>>> proposed it.
>>> One or another consumer may be used perhaps for one or another task.
>>> But consumers run only on repo-scan, right?
>>> Action events triggered on artifact-deployment are a different thing
>>> and not
>>> less important.
>>
>> I'd say if you've got an idea to go ahead with that - we can look at
>> it early and often and look to incorporate it. The above, if picked  
>> up
>> again, can still support it afterwards. Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>
> thanks Brett for the references.
> So you mean the consumers-architecture could be and should be  
> replaced by a
> generic event-framework, that also provides other extension-points  
> like the
> ones I suggested?

That's my impression, yes.

> That sounds pretty cool to me - but it's also a severe change -  
> looks like a
> bunch of work ;-)

Yes, and no. On the database refactoring branch I put in something  
very basic - I think if we start to introduce a central point to  
gather the handling, and introduce them in specific cases like the one  
you want, we can gradually introduce it.

> Perhaps we can share the work load? Would you like to go ahead and
> coordinate it?


I'm a bit swamped up until ApacheCon next month, but I'm happy to help  
you get started here, and I'm sure others are interested. If you  
wanted to share some ideas for how it might work I'm sure we can get  
something happening.

Cheers,
Brett