Re: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree it would be a nice to have, but is it a requirement for an ASF repo? Agree, lets wrap up the other specs first. I think we should delay, but a week or two maybe enough. Comment on the "/" issue. Help decidce in the version name not allowing "release" or "latest" etc. When that is done, then we can come back to this. I do think with all of Tim's excelent work we can wrap this up in a week or two.
Re: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/11/2003 07:23:15 PM: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Why don't we just focus on: > > > > a) getting an ASF-only repository up first, and > > b) Getting the management and tooling for that > > > > before taking on virtual hosting. > > > > I'm failing to see the requirement for us to do that *now*. > > Because Apache projects using the repository would need also non-asf > jars that we don't want to distribute -> virtual artifacts. And there are other places those jars can be found. I'm failing to see how this impacts a repo that stores ASF-only content. I agree it would be a nice to have, but is it a requirement for an ASF repo? -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
Re: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't we just focus on: a) getting an ASF-only repository up first, and b) Getting the management and tooling for that before taking on virtual hosting. I'm failing to see the requirement for us to do that *now*. Because Apache projects using the repository would need also non-asf jars that we don't want to distribute -> virtual artifacts. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's
Here is my 20 second URI http://host/[rootdir]/Orginzation/Product/version/ one dir each for Org, Prod, and Ver. After that is dependent on the kind of Product. ie the java-artifact-spec. So lets do a 20 sec java artifact spec Stephen McConnell wrote: Nick Chalko wrote: Tim Anderson wrote: For advocates of URI parsing, what problems are you trying to solve? * Discovery of "what is available" * Repository exploring. * Auto cleanup of repositories. The URI spec is too loose. I completely agree. But I just want to add that all I want is either (a) a simple structural spec that does not imply more the 20 mins of concentration, or (b) something auto-explanitory ... a.k.a. server side meta (which acording to me is in scope relative to the objective of qualifying and differentiating organization, artifact, version and all of the other semantics that are currently being generalized. Today - we are not in the 20 min spectrum. Stephen. As far as I can tell these are legal http://repo.apache.org/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha.jar http://repo.apache.org/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9.jar We really need to harden the URI spec a little and the "/" is a good start. R, Nick
RE: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
Why don't we just focus on: a) getting an ASF-only repository up first, and b) Getting the management and tooling for that before taking on virtual hosting. I'm failing to see the requirement for us to do that *now*. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ "Tim Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/11/2003 11:06:08 AM: > Virtual artifacts have the potential to: > . simplify build environments > . simplify installation documentation > . reduce the bar of entry for building ASF software > . reduce support requests > . allow meta-data to be associated with 3rd > party artifacts > > They are not about: > . hosting 3rd party artifacts within ASF repository > . circumventing licenses of 3rd party products > . exposing ASF to liability > > So far, no one has demonstrated that virtual > artifacts would expose ASF to liability - > although I'm not privvy to discussions held on > non-public ASF lists. > > -Tim > > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2003 10:41 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Suppose ASF has the following link in the repository: > > > http://repo.apache.org/sun/jndi/1.2.1/jars/jndi-1.2.1.jar > > > This is a virtual artifact, not hosted at ASF. > > > > I do not like the idea of virtual artifacts. I think that the > > meta-data for > > any component that needs a foreign artifact should contain the information > > needed by some tool. I don't think that we want to include foreign > > components in the ASF namespace. In fact, there is a situation right now > > where someone else has done that to the ASF, and we're not happy about it. > > > >--- Noel > > > > > >
Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's
Nick Chalko wrote: Tim Anderson wrote: For advocates of URI parsing, what problems are you trying to solve? * Discovery of "what is available" * Repository exploring. * Auto cleanup of repositories. The URI spec is too loose. I completely agree. But I just want to add that all I want is either (a) a simple structural spec that does not imply more the 20 mins of concentration, or (b) something auto-explanitory ... a.k.a. server side meta (which acording to me is in scope relative to the objective of qualifying and differentiating organization, artifact, version and all of the other semantics that are currently being generalized. Today - we are not in the 20 min spectrum. Stephen. As far as I can tell these are legal http://repo.apache.org/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha.jar http://repo.apache.org/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9.jar We really need to harden the URI spec a little and the "/" is a good start. R, Nick -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | ||
