Nick Chalko wrote:

Stephen McConnell wrote:


Just based on opinions registered so far - it seems that the notion of version in the path has concensus and that the real question and difference between the two position holding attention is if a version in the filename should be manadatory or not.
Is that a reasonable conclusions?


Seems that is where we are at. To me I can live with either.


Hi Nick:

Just for reference - I use non-versioned artifact referenced rather frequently. Typically I'll create a symlink to a versioned artifact. The main benefit is when end-users are deploying artifacts and your giving them a URL. From my point of view is simply more friendly to make this optional - and I think more practical in the long term.

Stephen.

p.s.

BTW - I've sorted out how he can deal with meta resolution without impacting the spec - thanks to Noel's links re. http which lead to some learning about content negotiation and with some assisstance from Erik Abele from infrastructure, I managed to get in place a test case that allows me to pull down artifact metadata by requesting a text/x-meta mime type.

SJM



R,
Nick



Stephen.



--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

|------------------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin                                |
| Production by Avalon                           |
|                                                |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin                |
| http://dpml.net/                               |
|------------------------------------------------|






Reply via email to