Three comments (probably all repetitions) : 1) Perl/Python have a package index/identification approaches. We might want a similar concept, i.e. queriable metadata that associates keywords/concepts with packages/groups/artefacts. These concepts could be language sensitive (so either different, or extended). These concepts/approaches could be argued as complimentary/orthogonal to repository, i.e. not in scope.
2) I am already overwhelmed by this information produced just around the discussion of the URL (location) of files, and the differences in needs for Java and/or others. We've not even started on the meat of the issues with this venture. My gut tells me that having a repo effort, with per language sub-efforts is the only way to achieve success & not a one-size-doesn't-fit-all-kludge. [I could be wrong, but I point to 1 above for this.] 3) Maybe we just phase things, and be happy with that. Maybe phase one is the Maven-like/Avalon-like repository on an HTTP server w/ minimal metadata. However hard we discuss the issues I doubt we'll get the "real world" experience maintaining a repository (with mirrors, and such) unless we roll up our sleeves and manage one on Apache hardware w/ partner mirrors. I think prototyping and phasing are keys here. regards, Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anou Manavalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:01 AM Subject: RE: Proposals > I am not sure if my earlier mail made it to the list, I really want to see a > different view of the URI > http://<host>/<group>/project/<type>/<id>-<version>[-<type>][.ext] > > It seems like we are inclining towards the already existing "Maven" kind of > URI. It has already proven its existence, instead of repeating the same > thing, may be we should try to find a better one. How to make it more user > friendly, better than what we have. > > As I stated earlier, most of the project names don't say what they are > trying to solve, and there are a lot of different projects that try to solve > almost the same problem like xerces, crimson... (we could have lot of legacy > projects with new ones coming in, but they all aim to solve one specific > thing) why not group them all together, make it easy for the user to go to > one place and decide on what they want. And the user need not know the > project per say and all they need to know is what they want to solve. > > regards, > -Anou > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Proposals > >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:43:17 +1100 > > > >No. > > > >In Maven, it's the artifact type, e.g. jar(s), war(s) exe(s). > > > >I thought we'd been over this one before. > >-- > >dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > >Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ > >Pub Key:http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/public-key.asc > > > > > >"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/11/2003 11:01:29 AM: > > > > > > http://<host>/<group>/jars/<id>[-<version>][-<type>].ext > > > > > > Is jars/ to be <platform>/ for the non-Java crowd? > > > > > > --- Noel > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus > scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 >
