On Nov 23, 2003, at 4:02 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
I'm the Apache JCP rep, and have had some talks with Sun about this
issue. The object is to get a formal agreement from Sun to allow us
to
do this, without us having to try and interpret the license agreement.
+1 to short circuit this
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.
As far as I can tell these are legal
From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
As far as I can tell
Tim Anderson wrote:
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.
I missed that the jars or type dir was required.
what about,
Tim Anderson wrote:
From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Anderson wrote:
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.
I missed
Not a criticism, but I'd prefer to know the requirements,
before writing the tools.
As far as I can tell, maven doesn't do URI parsing.
I don't know a lot about Gump, but if it wants to pull down the
newest versions of jars, it can via the latest version tag [1].
Avalon adds meta-data, which is
Not quite. The log4j-1.2.8.zip binary should be
log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip according to
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts
I would expect the log4j 1.2.8 release (with debug versions of
jars and binaries) to look something like:
apache/ (organisation)
Tim Anderson wrote:
Not a criticism, but I'd prefer to know the requirements,
before writing the tools.
Here is a user story.
point a tool at the http://repo.apache.org and have it display what
is available
This is much easier to do if we can tell the version from the product
from the
Not a criticism, but I'd prefer to know the requirements,
before writing the tools.
I know, I've been a huge advocate of that, but I'm starting to worry we are
in analysis paralysis. Logical URIs are so virtual it is easy to miss
practical implications. As such, I'd like to test the theory
I'm still not convinced that binaries is better than binary as a
type directory.
See my original comments that must have lost in the ether (section 2) -
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1124258
Cheers,
Ben
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
All,
As a way to force me to review the
10 matches
Mail list logo