> From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >Seems to me
> >that there is limited utility to being able to parse the URI,
> and that the
> >real key is having meta-data with which to assemble it.  But others don't
> >seem to agree with that view.  They want to parse semantic
> information from
> >the URI.
> >
> The semantic information is there in the URL,  org. project. version,
> artifact type, name,  release type etc.
> People WILL try to parse it.   I think it would be a Good Idea to make
> it easy to parse at least the major pieces into discrete chunks.
> Assuming most people will simply replace "/" with "-" or "_"  the issue
> is not one off URL length or URL readability, it seems to be mostly
> about  the browseablity of of directories.
> In other words have all the  apache projects under the apache dir, or
> under subdirs of apache.
> I think the convience of knowing exactly where org, project, and
> version  start and stop is worth the cost to browseablity.

The proposals aim to structure the repository such that:
1. artifacts can easily be located by users
2. artifacts can easily be located by tools

For [2], the intention is that a maven-like approach
will be used for artifact resolution i.e, the
user specifies enough criteria to enable a tool
to unambigously locate an artifact.
This approach doesn't require artifact URIs to be parsed.

For advocates of URI parsing, what problems are you trying
to solve?


Reply via email to