Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
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 will need this for later, when people ask us Why, we can point them to the wiki summary. 2. Version be a mandatory component of artifact filename Pros: . Artifacts become identifiable when *downloaded* from the repository. . This is not compatible with the current ASF scheme. Neither maven, nor dist require version in the artifact filename. Cons: . Presumes to know requirements of other repository users, for which we have no requirements. 3. Version in directory Cons: . I don't see how the need for a 'latest' symbolic link is a con. There is no uniform way at ASF at the moment to indicate the latest version. . Scheme not currently used by ASF. 4. There has been no discussion on how to cope with nightly or snapshot builds, which could change the version syntax. E.g: 1. Subdir per build: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031113/... 2. Embedded in version: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031113/... I'm leaning towards the former, as browsing is simpler. OTOH, this then leads to the possibility of nightly, snapshot, release etc being mandatory in product-specifier: product-specifier = organisation / project / rtype / version rtype = nightly | snapshot | release | ... -Tim -Original Message- From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax Current count. 2 For version dir with optional version on artifact name. 3 for version dir and versioned artifact name. Make sure you voice your opinion. Nick Chalko wrote: Lets see where we stand on the version. Please go to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIs VersionInURISytnax and vote for the Proposal you prefer. Add pro's and con's as you see fit. Lets see how close we are to a consensus so wee can move on to other parts of the URISyntax. R, Nick smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
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. Nick Chalko wrote: 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 will need this for later, when people ask us Why, we can point them to the wiki summary. 2. Version be a mandatory component of artifact filename Pros: . Artifacts become identifiable when *downloaded* from the repository. . This is not compatible with the current ASF scheme. Neither maven, nor dist require version in the artifact filename. Cons: . Presumes to know requirements of other repository users, for which we have no requirements. 3. Version in directory Cons: . I don't see how the need for a 'latest' symbolic link is a con. There is no uniform way at ASF at the moment to indicate the latest version. . Scheme not currently used by ASF. 4. There has been no discussion on how to cope with nightly or snapshot builds, which could change the version syntax. E.g: 1. Subdir per build: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031113/... 2. Embedded in version: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031113/... I'm leaning towards the former, as browsing is simpler. OTOH, this then leads to the possibility of nightly, snapshot, release etc being mandatory in product-specifier: product-specifier = organisation / project / rtype / version rtype = nightly | snapshot | release | ... -Tim -Original Message- From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax Current count. 2 For version dir with optional version on artifact name. 3 for version dir and versioned artifact name. Make sure you voice your opinion. Nick Chalko wrote: Lets see where we stand on the version. Please go to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIs VersionInURISytnax and vote for the Proposal you prefer. Add pro's and con's as you see fit. Lets see how close we are to a consensus so wee can move on to other parts of the URISyntax. R, Nick -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | ||
Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
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 reasonable conclusions? Seems that is where we are at. To me I can live with either. R, Nick Stephen. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
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. Is that a reasonable conclusions? Seems that is where we are at. To me I can live with either. Hi Nick: Just for reference - I use non-versioned artifact referenced rather frequently. Typically I'll create a symlink to a versioned artifact. The main benefit is when end-users are deploying artifacts and your giving them a URL. From my point of view is simply more friendly to make this optional - and I think more practical in the long term. Stephen. p.s. BTW - I've sorted out how he can deal with meta resolution without impacting the spec - thanks to Noel's links re. http which lead to some learning about content negotiation and with some assisstance from Erik Abele from infrastructure, I managed to get in place a test case that allows me to pull down artifact metadata by requesting a text/x-meta mime type. SJM R, Nick Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | ||
Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
Current count. 2 For version dir with optional version on artifact name. 3 for version dir and versioned artifact name. Make sure you voice your opinion. Nick Chalko wrote: Lets see where we stand on the version. Please go to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIsVersionInURISytnax and vote for the Proposal you prefer. Add pro's and con's as you see fit. Lets see how close we are to a consensus so wee can move on to other parts of the URISyntax. R, Nick smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RE: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
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. 2. Version be a mandatory component of artifact filename Pros: . Artifacts become identifiable when *downloaded* from the repository. . This is not compatible with the current ASF scheme. Neither maven, nor dist require version in the artifact filename. Cons: . Presumes to know requirements of other repository users, for which we have no requirements. 3. Version in directory Cons: . I don't see how the need for a 'latest' symbolic link is a con. There is no uniform way at ASF at the moment to indicate the latest version. . Scheme not currently used by ASF. 4. There has been no discussion on how to cope with nightly or snapshot builds, which could change the version syntax. E.g: 1. Subdir per build: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031113/... 2. Embedded in version: http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031112/... http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031113/... I'm leaning towards the former, as browsing is simpler. OTOH, this then leads to the possibility of nightly, snapshot, release etc being mandatory in product-specifier: product-specifier = organisation / project / rtype / version rtype = nightly | snapshot | release | ... -Tim -Original Message- From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax Current count. 2 For version dir with optional version on artifact name. 3 for version dir and versioned artifact name. Make sure you voice your opinion. Nick Chalko wrote: Lets see where we stand on the version. Please go to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIs VersionInURISytnax and vote for the Proposal you prefer. Add pro's and con's as you see fit. Lets see how close we are to a consensus so wee can move on to other parts of the URISyntax. R, Nick
