Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On 12 Nov 2003, at 15:31, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On 12 Nov 2003, at 12:50, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Just a note to let you know that there are a number of threads currently running over on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] concerning the establishment of a component repository project. After reading your email I think that many of the subjects you have addressed below are relevant to the things the Avalon crew are currently debating.
a content repository is a place where you store semi-structured data, you version it, you add metadata and you query it... it has to scale O(1) with the number of nodes (not even o(n), that's too much) and allow the smallest granularity possible (potentially, down to the very DOM node). Plusses are: granular ACL, node linking, transactionality, obvservability.
a component repository is a library of java components, a sort of CPAN/PEAR/apt-get for java.
Can you do a component repository with a content repository? yes, of course.
Can you do a content repository with a component repository? no and would even be silly to try to do so.
Just one more variation to complete the picture - a service directory.
Oh god. [sound of stefano banging his head on the table]
Take an asprin!
A content repository can be viewed as a service.
Stephen, everything can be viewed as a service. Escalating abstractions will not make it any easier for me to have the features I need, rather the opposite.
A directory can be used to discover a service provision solution (using for example a repository of component descriptions). Component descriptions can reference artifacts in an content repository. A component implementation can also use a content repository as part of its implementation. Etc., etc. In this respect - the ideas of a content repository and component repository are synergistic.
As I said, a component repository can be built with a content repository. The opposite is simply not true.
Umm, did I suggest anywhere that it was true?
My point is: there is no need for slide to look at what avalon is doing.
What I was originally responding to was the note from Edison Too referencing a lack of certain services/components in Avalon - a subject which is relevant to the threads over on Avalon concerning a component repository. My response to you comments was simply agreeing with your point concerning content/component and noting the respective synergies.
Cheers, Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
