> IIRC, the repository structure used by Maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/) > has generated much discussion in the past, with the > general concensus being that the flat structure: > . didn't help artifact categorisation > . made it difficult to navigate and locate artifacts
Folk have resolved those issues with type and version sub-directories. What we have now isn't flat. > It was an excellent first step, but I think it can be done > better. Yes, me too, but we need a tight set of useful categorizations, and I'm not sure that 'sub-project' is one. Artefact id (plus the others) covers that. I think that things like 'sub-project' are just too fluid and too subjective to fix into the URI. [Gump has a different view of a project than Maven than ...] regards Adam
