Not a criticism, but I'd prefer to know the requirements,
before writing the tools.
As far as I can tell, maven doesn't do URI parsing.
I don't know a lot about Gump, but if it wants to pull down the
newest versions of jars, it can via the "latest" version tag .
Avalon adds meta-data, which is supported through
the statement in :
"Projects should be able to deploy arbitrary artifacts to the repository,
whether they be for end-users, or meta-data (e.g, maven's project.xml).
Tools should ignore any artifact they don't understand."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 5:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's
> > Tim Anderson wrote:
> > >For advocates of URI parsing, what problems are you trying
> > >to solve?
> This is a simple matter of practicality. We've agreed to delay metadata so
> we can get a nice/simple repository structure w/o all the differences of
> opinion that metadata might introduce. We basically want to take existing
> repository structures (Maven's, Avalon's, Gump's, etc.) and formalize them
> to promote consistency/re-use.
> We need a repository that is practical at this level, and
> practical includes
> tooling/scripting & remote/local clients. Non-parsable URIs (from a loose
> spec) mean an unreadable repository entries, so it is impractical without
> metadata. We need parsable URIs so we can have the repository by it's own
> I see your reply to Nick references additional specification. I wonder if
> they just need to merge those into the full lspecification. At
> this stage of
> development tight is far better than loose.
> IMHO, we can make this repository as strict as we like to start with. We
> need a tight prototypical repository, so we can build a repository and
> exercise it with tools & by hand. We can't keep going back and
> forth in the
> theoretical, we need a concrete reference, we need practical experience.