* Shawn Walker <[email protected]> [2009-02-17 18:29]: > Stephen Hahn wrote: >> * Shawn Walker <[email protected]> [2009-02-17 17:53]: >>> * Whether multiple authorities can be present in the output of authority/0. >> >> Maybe--I don't think we went through this use case in full. I do want > > Sorry, I appear to have confused the ability to specify related > authority/origin URLs with multiple authorities in the output of > authority/0. > > Put differently: > Is it assumed that there is a 1:1 relationship between authority and > repository?
We aren't assuming this--we know it will be at least 1:N. Versatility for deployment suggests that the depot should allow M:1, so the top-level URL the depot serves could offer versions/0 and authority/0 operations. A document format that permits multiple authorities to be defined seems to be legitimate in any case. >> to check on the types of the various fields in the authority/0 >> response. There are a couple of fields that I believe need to be >> list-valued, where the current implementation would only consider >> a single value for the field as relevant. > > Does "current implementation" refer to the authority/0 proposal? No, it refers to what we have today, prior to authority/0. (As an example, we only allow a single origin server per authority.) Reading 5871, I'm mostly concerned about why authority_name isn't required, and by the growing set of booleans. - Stephen -- [email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
