> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > Is there any consensus out there that the
> > repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
> 

[snip]
> 
> I would like to change the name of product-specified (back?) to
> 'group-specifier'. I think that concepts like 'sub-project' are totally
> orthogonal to a artefacts repository, and how folks structure things like
> that is not something we ought attempt to replicate. There are other
> groupings we aren't allowing in, so why allow this one? I think 
> that 'group'
> becomes a namespace, and that products within that group (e.g. 
> sub-projects)
> can't uniquely name their artefacts with the group. That is all we need.
> Anything else is distraction/overkill.
> 
> As such, I'd say group-specifier=pchar* (i.e. no '/' in there, so it is
> parsable.)
> 

OK, there are now three alternatives:

1.  repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
                     version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
    product-specifier = organisation "/" project
    organisation = pchar+
    project = pchar+

2.  repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
                     version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
    product-specifier = organisation "/" project
    product-specifier = path_segments

3.  repository-uri = access-specifier "/" group-specifier "/"
                     version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
    group-specifier = pchar+

The third form leads to a flat repository structure, similar to 
that in use by maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven)
>From a browsing perspective, this doesn't scale to large numbers
of groups (aka products).

Example attached.

Regards,

Tim


Attachment: repoform3.tar.gz
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to