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: [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: 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