Thinking about the sub project hierarchies, like lets say 'Depot' goes under Jakarta and it has its own sub projects like 'Ruper' and 'Version' then the repository in the form[1] will have problems accomadating them.

That said, I don't want to give up the simple fact of clear separation of "/" between the specifiers.

Does any one see a problem in this one ?

1.  product-specifier = organisation "/" project-specifier
    organisation = pchar+
    project -specifier = project ["/" project]*
    project = pchar+

* - for 0 or more

regards,
-Anou


From: "Tim Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anywhere near concensus?
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:42:35 +1100

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 >>

_________________________________________________________________
Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the FREE McAfee online computer scan! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963




Reply via email to