Mailing-List: contact repository-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: repository@apache.org
Message-ID: <3FC2548D.50101@chalko.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:57:17 -0800
From: Nick Chalko <nick@chalko.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: repository@apache.org
Subject: Re: Use of '/' in ???-specifier's
References: <AHEMLCHGJOKOCPPFEOIHGEOKHKAA.tma@netspace.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <AHEMLCHGJOKOCPPFEOIHGEOKHKAA.tma@netspace.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tim Anderson wrote:

>>http://repo.apache.org/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha.jar
>>http://repo.apache.org/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9.jar
>>
>>We really need to harden the URI spec a little and the "/"  is a
>>good start.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I missed that the "jars" or type dir was required.
what about,

http://repo.apache.org/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/pgp/KEYS  
http://repo.apache.org/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/alpha/pgp/KEYS
I suppose this is the version named Alpha of the alpha/alpha project.
Or is it the alpha release of the version named alpha of the project named alpha or.. 


These are silly examples, but lets try to prevent at least some of them.

>The above a legal for the URI Syntax proposal [1], but illegal
>according to the common build version [2] and java artifact specifiers [3].
>Tools based on [2] & [3] should ignore them.
>
>Is it simply a matter of restricting organisation back to a single
>path segment? This would allow product-specifier to be determined
>by parsers.
>  
>
Yes that is the start,  make org and product  un ambigous is a really 
good start.

>Note that this was the original approach, but some people expressed a
>desire to be able to break down the hierarchy using reverse-FQDNs.
>  
>
I still think reverse-FQDN is a good idea but for parsability I would 
use . not /