Community
Participate
Working Groups
When you create a repository, you give it a "suffix". This is really a unique ID for the factory. I propose we change our extension point to factoryID.
I noticed that we specify our filter (which is really our factory ID) as optional (cardinality 0..1). To see if we really handle optional filters, I removed the filter for our simple metadata repository and a few hundred test cases failed. I wonder if the ID shouldn't be a required field instead?
Created attachment 159134 [details] patch This is a fairly significant change, but an important one in my opinion. Instead of specifying two elements (factory and filter), we now just specify a single element (factory) with two attributes (class and ID). Both attributes are required. In the previous model, filter was "optional", however, there was code that expected it to be set -- it was only really optional if you didn't mind the NPEs ;) Pascal, can you review this? It will break anyone who defines custom repos, so either we fix it now or mark as WONTFIX.
Pascal and I talked about this and we are going to leave things the way they are. The suffixes actually have value (even if that value is not being utilized today). However, there is a small bug with the schema. Currently the filter is set to 0..1, but it really should be 1..1 -- that is, each repository *must* have a filter (our code already assumes this). There are interesting cases to have 1..n filters (like content.jar and content.xml being valid names for the simple artifact repo), but for now we are going with 1..1.
I've release the fix to the cardinality.
