"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/03/2003 06:45:42 AM:
[snip] > How much should be encoded in a URI, and how much in data associated with > the URI? You seem to be trying to encode all of the data into the URI > naming space. Why not have a single URI for the target, and then trigger > behavior based upon the content? That would seem more extensible and less > fragile. It would also seem to rule out any consistency of naming across projects, and make the user browsing of a repository a logistical nightmare. > This would also unify with Costin's thoughts regarding tool-neutral > standards for the repository and project descriptors. The URI tells the > repository what you want, and it responds with the information known about > it, such as the locations of its parts, dependency information, build > instructions, etc. The URI could encode optional filter information about > what we want in the response. Depending upon whether the resource were > dynamic or static, the filter might or might not be honored. Sounds like that rules out the simple filesystem mirroring that works so well everywhere. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
