Mailing-List: contact repository-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:08:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Costin Manolache <costin@apache.org>
To: repository@apache.org
Subject: Re: What should be in the MetaData
In-Reply-To: <3E67CA47.2060709@apache.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303061550090.3354-100000@costin.sfo.covalent.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

> Nick Chalko wrote:
> 
> > This seems like  a whole lot of XML for what is implicit in the URI 
> > and the manifest.
> >
> >
> You mean the very specific to one server and one layout?  Your goals may 
> differ.  Thats fine.

I think the "repository" list was created to define the layout and 
metadata for the asf server. And by side effect - it may affect the
release process and naming in many apache projects.

IMHO a lot of XML and complexity is a bad idea for the repository.
But I agree that some complexity to support multiple repositories is
needed in a download tool. Different goals, you're right.

<rant>
I just heard "read fewer specifications" the other day. I think people 
should do the reverse - "write fewer specifications", and maybe read
the existing ones ( especially the ones that are actually relevant
and proved to be good enough and work ). A DTD is a specification.

For example: there are few widely used formats to describe version, 
dependencies, etc. Manifest is one, Apt is another. I know CPAN has 
a descriptor for mirrors ( supported by few tools ), and I'm sure
there are other ones. Maybe reading them and discussing with people
who might have used them would be more valuable than just inventing
another XML format.
</rant>

Costin