On 17/06/2010, at 3:07 PM, Deng Ching wrote: > A couple of things I noted down for the new repository API while working on > the generic metadata: > 1. further improvements on generic metadata: > - metadata can be displayed by category (hierarchical) for easier > viewing
This would be if you want to view all the metadata, instead of the generic one (which is not hierarchical, unless you change the way it is handled). > - implement a new plugin for the rating instead of including this in the > generic metadata (which is shown as key-value pairs) as suggested by Brett What I meant here is that if you want to do something on repeated instances, it'd be better to have a plugin (and standard namespace), that can validate the data and do more complicated handling, rather than requiring some additional naming convention. These are pretty simple pieces of code after all - but the generic one is still useful for those that want to just use a particular annotation internally without any new code. > 2. make the location of the metadata repository (currently stored in the > file system) configurable The file-based implementation is still only a proof of concept anyway - if we decide to harden that and use it I agree. But I personally would like to try and make JCR work and see how well it performs. > - one potential problem with having the default location in the root > directory of the actual repository is that the metadata repo can get > included if you run merge the Archiva repo to another repo (ex., running mvn > stage:copy in a staging repo) I think this is a fault of that goal more than Archiva :) That shouldn't impact the merge implementation happening now. We ignore all those in the scanning. - Brett -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
