Tim Anderson wrote:
The URI proposal [1] doesn't provide explicit support for subprojects - the assumption being that these will be encoded in the product-specifier portion of the URI:
repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/" version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier product-specifier = organisation "/" project
Using jakarta commons as an example, there are a several possible naming conventions:
A. http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-collections http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-logging
B. http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons-cli http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons-collections http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons-logging
C. as in [B], but with "org.apache.jakarta" for organisation
D. http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta.apache.org-commons/cli http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta.apache.org-commons/collections http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta.apache.org-commons/logging
E. as in [D], but with "org.apache.jakarta-commons" for organisation
F. http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta-commons/cli http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta-commons/collections http://repo.apache.org/jarkarta-commons/logging
G. http://repo.apache.org/apache-jarkarta-commons/cli http://repo.apache.org/apache-jarkarta-commons/collections http://repo.apache.org/apache-jarkarta-commons/logging
Of the above, [F] best matches CVS organisation: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons/
Which is the preferred approach?
Another possibility is to add a mandatory subproject path segment: product-specifier = organisation "/" project "/" subproject (mandatory so the URI can be parsed), giving:
H. http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons/cli http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections http://repo.apache.org/jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging
I. as in [H], but with "org.apache.jakarta" for organisation
This would mean a redundant directory for those projects with no subprojects, e.g: http://repo.apache.org/xml.apache.org/batik/batik but would: . better reflect project heirarchies . improve navigability, as the heirarchy is not as flat . avoid the need to specify naming conventions for subprojects: . organisation is always derived from the project domain name . project is always the top level project name . subproject is the subproject name, or in the absence of a subproject, the same as the top level project name.
Thoughts?
This has been quietly bugging me for the last week - but I havn't had the time to make a constructive suggestion.
However - for what it worth - I think it would be better to collapse [organization]/[project] in a simple [path] statement. The upside of this is that you have a lot more scalability with respect to nested subprojects, etc. The downside is identification of the organization from the URL. From my own experience I never deal with organization info at the url level. That's the sort of thing I'll pull out of metadata bound to an artifact (e.g. jar manifest, block description, whatever).
This would suggest :
http://repo.apache.org/org/apache/jakarta/commons/cli/ | | |<--------------------------->| | product specifier (replacing the organization/project spec)
But I'm wondering if this will break things downstream?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/ | |------------------------------------------------|
