www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Comments on URI Syntax
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:50:07 GMT

Tim Anderson wrote:

>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>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 
>>>>>Is that a reasonable conclusion?
>>>>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 etc), others will be useful to tools.
>>>Because there is difference between aggregation of files of a 
>>>partiular type as distinct from files that describe a particular typed 
>>>file instance.  I view the "artifact" as the principal file held in a 
>>>directory qualifed by a type (e.g. the jar file in a jars directory), 
>>>and that other resources such as READMEs, LICENSEs, MD5s, etc. are 
>>>examples of data that describe features of specific things such as a 
>>>group, version, artifact, etc.
>>>Why make the distinction?  When I look at the available artifacts in a 
>>>/jars/ directory I will present these as an list of artifacts.  A user 
>>>may select to view the properties/features of one of these items.  
>>>Using the name of an artifact - I can locate additional information 
>>>about the artifact such as the MD5 signature, maybe the license or 
>>>some dependency information - providing there is a convention that is 
>>>predictable.  I.e. I need a mechanism to locate information about a 
>>>particular artifact - e.g. 
>>I left out the all important principal artifact.
>>  <artifact-path>.<type>    <--------- the principal artifact (e.g.

>>  <artifact-path>.<something>  <------ some metadata
>>  <artifact-path>.<something-else> <-- more meta data
>>  <artifact-path>.MD5 <--------------- artifact signature
>>  <artifact-path>.README <------------ readme about the artifact
>>The important thing is the recognition of the difference between a file 
>>that *is* the artifact as distinct from a file that *describes* 
>>an artifact.
>>>  <artifact-path>.<something>
>>>  <artifact-path>.<something-else>
>>>  <artifact-path>.MD5
>>>  <artifact-path>.README
>File aggregation is important to tools, less so for end-users.
>The MD5 is just another artifact - its up to the tools
>to determine its association with other artifacts.

If the MD5 is just another artifact then it would belong under
something like:


But that does not make sence (or types don't make sence).  The
fact is that there really is a differnce between <path> and
<path>.<meta> providing that there that is a recognition in the
base repository schema that these are two different things.

That recognition (as a part of the schema) is very important for
the attribution of information that would be used in the next
level up - i.e. that leyer on which meta data is accesses to
in order to manage an anttribute.



Stephen J. McConnell

View raw message