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/                               |
|------------------------------------------------|






Reply via email to