Tim Anderson wrote:
From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Chalko wrote:
Given this spec repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/" version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
What is the version of this URL http://repo.apache.org/org/apache/commons/nightly/alpha/1.0/foo.jar
* Projet commons, version Nightly 1.0 alpha
* Project commons-nightly, version 1.0 alpha
* Project commons-nightly-alpah version 1.0 (release)
I think we should tighten the spec enough so we can at least tell the access, product,version, and artifact specifiers appart.
A repository URI cannot be parsed simply based on <repository-uri>. It needs to be used in conjunction with the other proposals before
any information can be derived.
As stated previously, the URI doesn't match the criteria supported
by the other proposals. This doesn't mean that the URI is invalid, it simply means that it isn't supported by them. Tools that are based on the proposals should therefore ignore it.
Alternative approaches would be to: . limit each *-specifier to a single path segment (i.e, disallow "/") Hopefully, the proposals show that this is too restrictive
. include delimeters in the URI E.g, http://repo.apache.org/organisation/apache/project/foo/version/... Duplicate information, and just plain *ugly*.
I'm really not agree or disagreeing at this time - I just have a feeling in my bones that something is wrong. As such - consider this as simple rambling by someone who has not captured the big picture.
After heading down to the cafe for a quick break - when walking back my thinking is that maybe the [organization]/[product] notion is artificial. What [organization]/[product] and [organization]/[product]/[version] do is to establish a path to an logical artifact. I can't get away from that conclusion that we should not be focussing on the url as a spec - but instead we should be focussing on the url as a [artifact-identifier] and from that point on we should be using metadata to provide us with the information about organization, product name, available versions, etc.
But this presuposes that atrifact is something more abstract than a file - and I'm guessing that your idea of artifact is equivalent to file.
Appologies here because I'm not keen on being the odd-guy out - and I don;t want to disrupt the flow. But at the same time I want to see a good result from this. And from that point of view - my own feeling is that we should *not* be focussing on the url as the base layer - but instead focus on what is the meta descriptor and its MIME relationship *then*focusus on how to access this via a url. But I could easily be totally wrong because I'm still in digesting/thinking mode.
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/ | |------------------------------------------------|