> 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 , 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