Hi Noel,
Correct, using a URI does not require a specific implementation; but in
today's environment, if someone needs a different repo format, they get one
of two responses: 1) create your own repo that uses a different repo format;
or 2) use the same repo format but transform the artifact names. Thus,
the repos - as they exists within the community - are, for all effective
purposes, implementation specific: none of them can be used for custom
formats. Thus the API is adequate, but the implementation may prove
problematic in the long run. I decided to go with option 2; but the point is
that this issue will keep coming up as developers add new languages and
require new formats.
Regards,
Shane
On 5/15/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although HTTP GET with a URL may qualify as an API, under its
> current form its really implementation (file-system) specific.
What makes it implementation specific? You can't store the files in a DB,
and map the URI to the resource? Isn't it really a URI, specifying the
package name and version?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
