incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <>
Subject Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo
Date Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:57:35 GMT

Jason van Zyl wrote:

>On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 16:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>I think that producing a single repository, or at least a set of
>>mechanisms that allow a single storage facility to look like a
>>repository with multiple interfaces, is a task for infrastructure
>>and commons to work out (meaning that the people who have interest
>>in such a thing will work together to minimize the cost to the ASF,
>>both in terms of bandwidth and volunteer time, under the auspices
>>of the people responsible for keeping us on the net).  We don't
>>need a separate group for that because it is an internal task,
>>and there are no IP issues that require a trip through incubator.
>>If there are additional software tools that might make useful
>>Apache products and people to stoke the engines, then we should
>>incubate those here as new projects.  We just need a clear proposal.
>So if I understand this correctly the discussions on repository@apache
>should now be conducted on infrastructure where we are talking about the
>physical layout of the repository in a file system that is accessible
>via http.

Small note - some of the participants on the repository@apache are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried implementation
solution.  Some consider this area to be much more than an HTTP download
handler. In fact - if the scope of a repository model were limited to
that then would would be missing a really big opportunity to do this in
a way is of real value to multiple projects.  Yes - you can assume some
simplistic models down low - but hopefully this is not just about
plumbing but also about addressing the requirements across different
abstractions that will ultimately ensure that semantic assumptions are
consistent across multiple repository-enabled applications.

>Just trying to clarify, is this correct?
I hope not - it would not meet Avalon project requirements relative to
repository-aware applications. I much prefer Roy's terminology "a single
storage facility to look like a repository with multiple interfaces".
Roy's statement *does* encompass the scope of requirements that I see as



Stephen J. McConnell

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message