To summarise, there are three possible ways to encode
subprojects in URIs:
1. Status quo
repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
product-specifier = organisation "/" project
. recommend that is the reverse
Tim Anderson wrote:
3. Change so that it is opaque
repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
version-specifier "/" artifact-specifier
product-specifier = path_segments
. recommend that contains:
. reverse FQDN
. project name
. subproject name
See inline.
> From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 4 December 2003 6:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: subproject URI naming convention
>
>
> Tim Anderson wrote:
>
> >3. Change so that it is opaque
> >
> > repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifi
Tim Anderson wrote:
The fact that commons-lang and commons-io are both part of the same
Jakarta Project has no meaning to a repository.
True, but users browsing the repository can find them easier if
they are grouped together.
The only difference between
commons/lang and commons-lang
Tim Anderson wrote:
To summarise, there are three possible ways to encode
subprojects in URIs:
1. Status quo
2. Introduce mandatory path
3. Change so that it is opaque
I'm beginning to prefer option 3.
+1 for option 3
Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|-
> From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Tim Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> >>The fact that commons-lang and commons-io are both part of the same
> >>Jakarta Project has no meaning to a repository.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >True, but users browsing the repository can find them easier if
> >they are group
> From: Tim Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:35 AM
Damn - forgot version in artifact name...
[snip]
Some examples, using valid URIs:
1. http://repo.com/alpha/beta/alpha/1.0/binaries/beta-alpha-1.0.zip[1]
artifact-specifier = "binaries/beta-alpha-1.0.zi
[1] thinking of dropping "-bin" suffix for binaries. "-src" suffix
for sources would be retained.
I would prefer to have the -bin and -src in the artifact name, reason being
same as why we have the version in there. It looses its URI after
downloading it.
-Anou
_
Tim Anderson wrote:
From: Tim Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:35 AM
Damn - forgot version in artifact name...
[snip]
Some examples, using valid URIs:
1. http://repo.com/alpha/beta/alpha/1.0/binaries/beta-alpha-1.0.zip[1]
artifact-specifier = "binaries
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Tim Anderson wrote:
>
> >>From: Tim Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:35 AM
> >>
> >>
> >Damn - forgot version in artifact name...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Some examples, using valid URIs:
> >
> >1.
> ht
> From: Anou Manavalan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:43 AM
>
> >[1] thinking of dropping "-bin" suffix for binaries. "-src" suffix
> > for sources would be retained.
> >
>
>
> I would prefer to have the -bin and -src in the artifact name,
> reason being
> same
version-name = pchar+ & ~(formal-build-designation |
interim-build-designation | latest)
artifact-specifier = path_segments
With the N levels of grouping you must look FIND the version in the
middle somewhere
but version-name can be jar or apache or jars or foo
and the path_segments in the pro
12 matches
Mail list logo
