Tim Anderson wrote:
I have a few comments on the content of that page:
1. Not sure why the discussion and the proposals are
separate, given the partial duplication of pros
and cons for each.
Would prefer to see these merged.
Good point, feel free to merge them.
and add your pro cons.
We
Just based on opinions registered so far - it seems that the notion of
version in the path has concensus and that the real question and
difference between the two position holding attention is if a version in
the filename should be manadatory or not.
Is that a reasonable conclusions?
Stephen.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Just based on opinions registered so far - it seems that the notion of
version in the path has concensus and that the real question and
difference between the two position holding attention is if a version
in the filename should be manadatory or not.
Is that a
I've restructured the wiki page at
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIsVersionInU
RISytnax,
and removed the part about symbolic links.
-Tim
-Original Message-
From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL
Nick Chalko wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Just based on opinions registered so far - it seems that the notion
of version in the path has concensus and that the real question and
difference between the two position holding attention is if a version
in the filename should be manadatory or not.
The URISyntax proposal is silent on how to handle
nightly, release, snapshot, and latest builds.
This should be formalised.
The current proposal has:
product-specifier = organisation / project / version
where:
version = *pchar
To support nightlies etc, this leads to the possibility of
Tim Anderson wrote:
OK - so it should be at part of the java artifact specifier proposal [1],
or do you envision another layer?
I don't think this is java specific - its software development process
specific. My current thinking is that it is a langauge independent
layer is sufficient (mainly
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:04 pm, Michal Maczka wrote:
Yes - you are right they don't differ in this purpose.
But it doesn't mean that one of them is not need. I think that
repository is easily navigated
when both groupId and type directories co-exits.
I guess what I saying is why not collapse
Peter Donald wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:04 pm, Michal Maczka wrote:
Yes - you are right they don't differ in this purpose.
But it doesn't mean that one of them is not need. I think that
repository is easily navigated
when both groupId and type directories co-exits.
I guess what I saying
Digesting each section slowly,
Its great idea to make Artifact Specifier to be opaque to give way to
different languages, but I am not sure about the Version Specifier. Version
Specifier can be considered as language independent and allowing different
best practices in there would make the
Its great idea to make Artifact Specifier to be opaque to give way to
different languages, but I am not sure about the Version Specifier.
Version
Specifier can be considered as language independent and allowing different
best practices in there would make the repository unordered and could
11 matches
Mail list logo
