> > So here is a key focuossed issue.
> > What should the URI look like
> > The latest URI discussed was
> > http://<host>/<project>/<version>/artifact-[<version>].ext
> > For example
> > * http://repo.apache.org/org-apache-ant/1.5.1/ant-1.5.1.jar
Are we discussing URI or URL? If URI, ok good .. but is this current?
I thought it was more like (w/ pseudo-regexp notation):
I'm not sure I like all of that (and yes, it is Java centric) but as I
understand it, it is how the repositories currently look.
1) I could cope w/o 'jars' if that made it less Java centric.
2) I don't like the redundant /<version>/ -- it leads to the needs for
symlinks for latest (or similar). I prefer it in the filename. Once things
get copied out of a repository it is good to see what they are, fully
BTW: I see this more as a URL than a URI. If we are attempting a URI --
independent from actualy 'location' -- then maybe my comments are out of
place. I could support an URI approach (I guess) but I wonder if then the
URI ought be a higher level entity - -i.e. "the jars for project X" not
named things jars. I think repository has to work at the group level, not
the file level.
> > The part still needs to be decided is the project name.
> Since this is an ASF repo, isn't the ASF project name enough?
> > I think the most stable idea proposed is the java package name with -
> > instead of .
> I'd prefer to stick with the ASF project name.
I can agree, it is a lot less 'fat' than package, but does it help the user
enough? Say the user downloads a new project from CVS into their IDE, gets
started, and finds that package org.apache.xyz is missing. How do they know
that xyz is part of apache project jakarta-blah or whatever? Maybe a nice
reverse map (kinda like Gump gives) would help. I feel that project name
tends to push strongly towards client side metadata though, [or server side
queries, I guess.]
BTW: Clearly package is Java-centric. Maybe something namespaced? E.g
java:org.apache.ant or something. I'm just throwing this out, I suspect
project name is right, I just believe it has issues.