> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Michal Maczka wrote: > > > IMHO "type" directory should be mandatory > > > +1
-1 for reasons outlined previously in http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ms gNo=312 > > > > > > > We should always use: > > http://repo.apache.org/apache/ant/1.5.4/keys/KEYS-1.5.4 > > > > More rules and exceptions will make entire process harder from point > > of view of tools. > > > > My proposition is: > > > > repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/" > > artifact-specifier > > > > For java artifacts, artifact-specifier is: > > > > artifact-specifier = {plural form of type} "/" artifact > > > > type = "jar" | "war" | "rar" | "tld" | "binary" | "source" > > | "license" | ... > > > > {plural form of type} = "jars" | "wars" | "rars" | "tlds" | > > "binaries" | "source" > > | "licenses" | ... > > > > I'm not keen on the notion of a static type enumeration and > corresponding plural form. This sort of information can be easily > expressed in a meta descriptor at the level of a group - .e.g. > ".group". A .group file could include the mapping of a type to its > plural form within the scope of the group which would significantly > improve the machine friendliness of the repository model. You can apply > the same principal to distinguish and qualify other level in the > repository - e.g. .type qualifying a directory as a type directory. > > Stephen. I'm hoping we can produce a set of specifications without resorting to meta-data. Meta data is great for writing generic tools, but we don't have enough requirements from other languages to agree on what is required. I suspect attempting to get any sort of concensus would paralyze this effort. -Tim
