Jason van Zyl wrote:

On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:47, Stephen McConnell wrote:

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are
discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s)
of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried implementation solution. Some consider this area to be much more than an HTTP download handler. In fact - if the scope of a repository model were limited to that then would would be missing a really big opportunity to do this in a way is of real value to multiple projects. Yes - you can assume some simplistic models down low - but hopefully this is not just about plumbing but also about addressing the requirements across different abstractions that will ultimately ensure that semantic assumptions are consistent across multiple repository-enabled applications.

The requirement is that ASF-owned software be distributed in an efficient
(for our costs), reliable (for our maintainers), and user-friendly way.

I would add one more requirement to above statement - namely "machine-friendly". There is an emerging requirement for application driven downloading that has the potential to significantly exceed the classic browser driven requirements that the ASF is addressing today. This has a direct impact on ASF costs, reliability, and utility.

I have challenged you to give me a scenerio that I can't satisfy with something like the current Maven repository. Instead you drone on ad nauseum about the theoretical. Let's have a concrete example.


Look around you - take a look at things you involved with. I've already provided you with examples where the simplistic http over a maven style file system layout breaks. You have already provided me with the details of workarounds that the Maven platform incorporates to address these inefficiencies. There is a bigger picture. That picture is based on the collection of the requirements from repository-enabled applications - a set of requirements that you seem determined to reject.

We can address those concerns with an open mind (a.k.a. a process of collaboration and mutual respect) or we could follow your approach to consensus building. While I'm very confident that you believe that your conclusions meet the present and near-term ASF requirement, I and others have different opinions. Should you wish to explore that area more constructively - I am very confident that a sustained effort by you towards the consideration and appreciation of the opinions and experience of others will go a long
way in justifying your potential contribution to this subject.



Stephen J. McConnell

Reply via email to