Is there any concensus out there that the repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
The only sticking point I'm aware of at the moment, is
the product-specifier part of the URI, i.e,
repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
1. product-specifier = organisation "/" project
organisation = pchar+
project = pchar+
OR
2. product-specifier = path_segments
So far, form [1] seems to be preferred as it supports URI parsing.
I prefer [2] as it allows better representation of project
heirarchies.
I'm attaching a sample repository structure for [1].
A sample for [2] can be found here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ms
gNo=490
If someone with a public webspace can extract them both (Adam?),
that would be great.
Thanks,
Tim
repoform1.tar.gz
Description: Binary data
