> IIRC, the repository structure used by 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



Reply via email to