RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Tim Anderson
I changed organisation to name-segments to support structures using reverse-FQDNs e.g: http://repo.apache.org/org/apache http://repo.apache.org/org/tigris http://repo.apache.org/com/sun while maintaining support for single segment organisation names e.g: http://repo.apache.org/oracle See

Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Nick Chalko
Tim Anderson wrote: From a tool perspective, it can unambiguously locate a project when given inputs of: org.apache - must replace . with / before performing lookup org/apache oracle The implication of this is that generic tools can't parse the URI and determine what is part of the

RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Tim Anderson
From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tim Anderson wrote: From a tool perspective, it can unambiguously locate a project when given inputs of: org.apache - must replace . with / before performing lookup org/apache oracle The implication of this is that generic tools

Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Nick Chalko
Tim Anderson wrote: ink easing the job for tools is a good goal. We must support both Humans and Tools. I would favor Humans. But both humans and tools will have problems when some orginzation decides its project name is Beta or nightly, etc I think we should consider not allowing / in

RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Noel J. Bergman
However, I don't think this is unreasonable. There is no requirement that tools be able to parse URIs to extract meta-data. There is a requirement that repositories work (at some minimum level) without metadata, especially since we aren't specifying metadata. Without a parsable URI (or

Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Adam R. B. Jack
Noel wrote: Adam, and how is said tool going to start in the first place? Without meta-data, there is a limit to what the tool can do. Basically, it would have to operate relative to the URL provided to it. My input here is primarily based on writting Ruper (http://www.krysalis.org/ruper),

RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Tim Anderson
From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] snip/ You could have the client tool be told the resource/URI by the user, and do the download/verification, yes. That said, I don't think it buys the user enough, they have to browse/locate stash the URI in some local config. I'd like to say

RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Noel J. Bergman
My input here is primarily based on writting Ruper You don't have to like the tool, I'm not trying to push the implementation I've never even seen the thing, and you are a priori assuming that I don't like it? It allows you to query what is there, query and capture oldest resources [and do

RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-15 Thread Tim Anderson
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My input here is primarily based on writting Ruper You don't have to like the tool, I'm not trying to push the implementation I've never even seen the thing, and you are a priori assuming that I don't like it? It allows you to query

Parsable URI (Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2)

2003-11-15 Thread Adam R. B. Jack
Noel wrote: You don't have to like the tool, I'm not trying to push the implementation I've never even seen the thing, and you are a priori assuming that I don't like it? No Neol, I'm not that emoition, I meant it dispassionately and without inference, maybe it just read differently. That

RE: Parsable URI (Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2)

2003-11-15 Thread Tim Anderson
The URI proposals so far specify URIs which are just as parseable as those currently in use by maven's repository [1]. The only caveat is that they need to be parsed from right to left, as the organisation [2] part of product-specifier cannot be separated from the directory part of

Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2

2003-11-14 Thread Anou Manavalan
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

Tooling (was Version Specifier in Re: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2)

2003-11-14 Thread Adam R. B. Jack
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