Re: Proposals

2003-11-07 Thread Stephen McConnell
Nick Chalko wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: Anou Manavalan wrote: With no responses supporting this idea, I guess I will put this idea to rest in peace ;-) Searching is certainly on the my agenda. We need it for IDE related development, repository management, and intelligent query based

Re: Scope/Phasing

2003-11-08 Thread Stephen McConnell
Adam R. B. Jack wrote: It's really not that much more than that. Sophisticated systems that are reliable are built upon simplicity not complexity I agree. I'd like to think of what we are doing as laying out a simple file system, and later building services that index/query. Compare this to

Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Roy T. Fielding wrote: Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s) of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut-and-dried implementation solution. Some consider this area to be much more than an

Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:47, Stephen McConnell wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: Small note - some of the participants on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] are discussing the actual requirements - which from my (and other) point(s) of view go beyond a file-system http protocol cut

Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:18, Stephen McConnell wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: I have challenged you to give me a scenerio that I can't satisfy with something like the current Maven repository. Instead you drone on ad nauseum about the theoretical. Let's have

Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 00:35, Stephen McConnell wrote: Jason: I must confess that I am intrigued by your approach to collaboration! That's because you're at least as deficient as I am in the realm of collaboration. Neither you or I are any great shining examples

Re: [Possible Incubation] Apache Repo

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Roy T. Fielding wrote: It is about safe downloading of dependencies from a virtual repository that extends across mirrored systems on a heterogeneous, multi-organizational network. The underlying infrastructure is going to be file based because it will be replicated with rsync. I sure as hell

Re: Proposals

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
peter royal wrote: On Nov 7, 2003, at 5:37 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Searching is certainly on the my agenda. We need it for IDE related development, repository management, and intelligent query based artifact aquisition (and HTTP in this context is not an ideal solution). But that's

Re: Comments on URI Syntax

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From the requirements at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/Requirements: ASF Repository shall ... allow browsing and downloading of artifacts by humans via normal web browser. Requiring a version to be part of the artifact file name when the

Re: URI/URL Syntax -- little nits to be aware of

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: I take the view that everything in the repository is an artifact. Tools can exclude the artifacts they don't need - there can't be any language agnostic support for this, without adding metadata. Tim: How do you address something like the following:

Re: Comments on URI Syntax

2003-11-09 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From the requirements at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/Requirements: ASF Repository shall ... allow browsing and downloading of artifacts by humans via normal web browser. Requiring a version

Re: URI/URL Syntax -- little nits to be aware of

2003-11-10 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tim Anderson wrote: I take the view that everything in the repository is an artifact. Tools can exclude the artifacts they don't need - there can't be any language agnostic support for this, without adding metadata

Re: Comments on URI Syntax

2003-11-10 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: By implication - the README is not an artifact but a feature of a version. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Stephen. Why make the distinction? I view everything a project deploys as an artifact. Some artifacts will only be useful to end users (e.g, README, LICENSE.txt

Re: Comments on URI Syntax

2003-11-10 Thread Stephen McConnell
Woops - see small correction in line. Stephen McConnell wrote: Tim Anderson wrote: By implication - the README is not an artifact but a feature of a version. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Stephen. Why make the distinction? I view everything a project deploys as an artifact. Some artifacts

Re: Comments on URI Syntax

2003-11-10 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Woops - see small correction in line. Stephen McConnell wrote: Tim Anderson wrote: By implication - the README is not an artifact but a feature of a version. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Stephen

Re: [proposal] java artifact specifier v0.1

2003-11-10 Thread Stephen McConnell
Michal Maczka wrote: IMHO type directory should be mandatory +1 We should always use: http://repo.apache.org/apache/ant/1.5.4/keys/KEYS-1.5.4 More rules and exceptions will make entire process harder from point of view of tools. My proposition is: repository-uri = access-specifier /

Re: repository@ awareness?

2003-11-11 Thread Stephen McConnell
Leo Simons wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Do any 'core' infrastructure people need to get involved to help guide with what's practical or not? yep. But I doubt you really need to get 'deeply' involved. A half-page explanation of what resources are and are not available should be enough, don't

Re: repository@ awareness?

2003-11-12 Thread Stephen McConnell
some more on on content negotiation subject as this may be a factor in resolving some of the requirements I have. Stephen. Noel J. Bergman wrote: Stephen McConnell asked: File system - a convenient and simple solution - but should a file system driven approach be the basis for the next

Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax

2003-11-14 Thread Stephen McConnell
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.

Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax

2003-11-14 Thread Stephen McConnell
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

Re: URI Syntax: nightly and release builds

2003-11-14 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim: My initial impression is that all the following could be expressed as part of a spec. one-level-up from the artifact spec. Everything below is dealing with the notion of the usage of the repository for a particular purpose - namely the registration of artifacts arising from development

Re: URI Syntax: nightly and release builds

2003-11-14 Thread Stephen McConnell
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

Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's

2003-11-16 Thread Stephen McConnell
Nick Chalko wrote: Given this spec repository-uri = access-specifier / product-specifier / version-specifier / artifact-specifier What is the version of this URL http://repo.apache.org/org/apache/commons/nightly/alpha/1.0/foo.jar * Projet commons, version Nightly 1.0 alpha

Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's

2003-11-16 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nick Chalko wrote: Given this spec repository-uri = access-specifier / product-specifier / version-specifier / artifact-specifier What is the version of this URL http://repo.apache.org/org/apache/commons

Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's

2003-11-16 Thread Stephen McConnell
Noel J. Bergman wrote: maybe the [organization]/[product] notion is artificial. What [organization]/[product] and [organization]/[product]/[version] do is to establish a path to an logical artifact. At any of it does is establish a path to a logical artifact. Seems to me that there is

Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's

2003-11-25 Thread Stephen McConnell
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

Re: URI proposals updated

2003-11-30 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim: Short note to let you know that I updated ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts to include the Avalon bar file as a java-artifact-specifier. I think that this latest spec is looking a lot more robust - thanks for the effort on this. Cheers, Steve. Tim Anderson wrote: I've updated the proposals to

Re: subproject URI naming convention

2003-12-01 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: The URI proposal [1] doesn't provide explicit support for subprojects - the assumption being that these will be encoded in the product-specifier portion of the URI: repository-uri = access-specifier / product-specifier / version-specifier /

Re: subproject URI naming convention

2003-12-04 Thread Stephen McConnell
Tim Anderson wrote: To summarise, there are three possible ways to encode subprojects in URIs: 1. Status quo 2. Introduce mandatory subproject path 3. Change product-specifier so that it is opaque I'm beginning to prefer option 3. +1 for option 3 Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL