1) I'll cut-n-paste your pros/cons into the Wiki, thanks. I didn't want to
presume to know your vote, so please put it there:


2) I believe most folks want more conformity rather than less, so are more
inclined towards "version goes here" than "optionally here, or here, or one
of", but folks can vote on that themselves.

3) Clearly it is a primary goal to work with mirroring, however generically
parsing a bunch of the things references on here
[http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html] would be nightmarish. I'm sure that
pushing 'type' to the directory will help, but there is still significant
scope for clash with version and extension :


Where does version (if pchar*) end? Do we need to enumerate extensions?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: Where to put Version in the URISyntax

> RE:
>   http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/URISyntax
> RISytnax
> Right now, it seems that most ASF projects follow the layout described for
> the mirroring system: http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html.  That scheme
> places the version in the terminal element of the URI.  That scheme also
> makes heavy use of symlinks, places only the most popular formats in the
> project root, and has the user browse through project-specific layouts for
> platform-specific binary releases.
> Version in the product-specifier:
>  PRO: - all artifacts for a given version in one place
>  CON: - after downloading, if the version is not ALSO
>         in the artifact element, the information is
>         lost.
> Version in the artifact-specifier:
>  PRO: - after downloading, it is obvious which version
>         is being used.
>       - compatible with current ASF scheme
>  CON: - if the version isn't also in the path, all
>         artifacts are in one huge directory.
> Version in both places:
>  PRO: - all artifacts for a given version in one place
>       - after downloading, it is obvious which version
>         is being used.
>       - compatible with current ASF scheme
>  CON: - relies upon ability for file system to support
>         symlinks, or has massively redundant data.
> We've already indicated that version "M.m.p", "current", "nightly",
> "mm-dd-yy", etc.  Placing the version in the product-specifier would
> to require a change from the current mirroring structure, which places
> current versions under <project>/, unless we define that an empty version
> means the current version.
> I have no problem stating a semantic that
>    the version must either the same in both product-specifier
>    and artificat-specifier, or it may be empty in one or both
>    places.  If it is empty in both places it is the same as
>    current and is a non-preferred use.  If it is empty in one
>    place, and specified in the other, the empty use has no meaning.
> We would clearly note that although the version MAY be empty in both the
> product and version specifiers, it is highly undesirable except in
> cases.  The version SHOULD be in at least one place.
> Thoughts?
> --- Noel

Reply via email to