Any objections to new configId format?

[David Jencks]

I have a large number of changes on my machine related to the proposed 
new configId format and I would like to commit them before they get out 
of sync.

To review, it is a URI of the form
groupId/artifactId/version/type

where type is "car" for configurations.  The same format is used for 
dependencies, although the type is "jar".  In plans, you can always use 
the expanded form

<import>
   <groupId>foo</groupId>
   <type>car</type>
   <artifactId>bar</artifactId>
   <version>1.0</version>
</import>

or for dependencies

<dependency>
   <groupId>foo</groupId>
   <artifactId>bar</artifactId>
   <version>1.0</version>
</dependency>

It is definitely possible to use an arbitrary URI for a configId, 
although I don't know how successful using an arbitrary uri for a 
parentId will be.  While you could use the packaging plugin with a 
configId of some other format, I don't think the assembly plugin would 
be able to find it.

Are there any objections to my committing this sometime monday 
afternoon or evening?

thanks
david jencks