You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to repository@apache.org by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net> on 2003/03/06 22:41:42 UTC
Organization Identifiers - URI Syntax
We should try to have an organization identifier of something like
"org-apache", or "org.apache". This shouldn't be confused with Java package
naming conventions. Repository discussions should get bogged down in
references to JARs, I see this repository URI syntax as being technology
neutral. Artifacts are simply files, if the XML descriptor for a specific
product wants to provide some sort of artifact type that would be just fine.
All I want to address is the "organization" portion of the following URI"
http://<host>/<organization>/<product>/<artifact>
I propose that organization be a reversed domain name, ( I take back my
opposition to using periods in this field ). It is important to have this
organization level to reduce the chances of name collision. Also,
organizations would have free range to control there part of the repository
namespace. Organization identifiers would be org.apache, com.sun, and so
on. These should not be confused with Java package or class names, URI
syntax shouldn't be concerned with the target technology.
As a side note, my requirements would be met with the existing Maven
repository structure plus this organizational layer. I'm taking an
incrementalist approach here, but only because I've got projects that
currently rely on the ibiblio.org repository.
--------
Tim O'Brien
Re: Organization Identifiers - URI Syntax
Posted by Nick Chalko <ni...@chalko.com>.
I agree that this is a good idea, with the adddtion of version
http://<host>/<organization>/<product>/<version>/<artifact>
where artifact may optionally have a version suffix such as ant-1.5.jar
O'brien, Tim wrote:
>We should try to have an organization identifier of something like
>"org-apache", or "org.apache". This shouldn't be confused with Java package
>naming conventions. Repository discussions should get bogged down in
>references to JARs, I see this repository URI syntax as being technology
>neutral. Artifacts are simply files, if the XML descriptor for a specific
>product wants to provide some sort of artifact type that would be just fine.
>
>All I want to address is the "organization" portion of the following URI"
>
>http://<host>/<organization>/<product>/<artifact>
>
>I propose that organization be a reversed domain name, ( I take back my
>opposition to using periods in this field ). It is important to have this
>organization level to reduce the chances of name collision. Also,
>organizations would have free range to control there part of the repository
>namespace. Organization identifiers would be org.apache, com.sun, and so
>on. These should not be confused with Java package or class names, URI
>syntax shouldn't be concerned with the target technology.
>
>As a side note, my requirements would be met with the existing Maven
>repository structure plus this organizational layer. I'm taking an
>incrementalist approach here, but only because I've got projects that
>currently rely on the ibiblio.org repository.
>
>--------
>Tim O'Brien
>
>
>
--
Nick Chalko Show me the code.
Centipede
Ant + autodownloadable build plugins + needed jars autodownload.
http://krysalis.org/centipede
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Organization Identifiers - URI Syntax
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:dirkx@webweaving.org]
>
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, O'brien, Tim wrote:
>
> > We should try to have an organization identifier of something like
> > "org-apache", or "org.apache". This shouldn't be confused with Java
> > package naming conventions. Repository discussions should get bogged
> > down in references to JARs, I see this repository URI syntax as being
> > technology neutral. Artifacts are simply files, if the XML descriptor
> > for a specific product wants to provide some sort of artifact type
> > that would be just fine.
>
> This may draw a smile in certain quarters - but have a look
> at 'URN's - they solve very large parts of this puzzle
> cleanly; allow others to mangage similar namespaces in
> paralleln (and have recently been made operational in addr-arpa).
>
I'm entirely neutral as to the composition of this organization identifier
as long as uniqueness can be guaranteed. The gist of the email was to
propose another level of structure, and to try to push people out of the
Java-only mindset.
Dw, it took me 2 years to grok the remifications of XML, I'm sure it's going
to take me 2 years from now to fully grok URN and NAPTR records, but in the
meantime, I think we'd all be greatful if you could educate us all.
> Dw
>
>
Re: Organization Identifiers - URI Syntax
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, O'brien, Tim wrote:
> We should try to have an organization identifier of something like
> "org-apache", or "org.apache". This shouldn't be confused with Java package
> naming conventions. Repository discussions should get bogged down in
> references to JARs, I see this repository URI syntax as being technology
> neutral. Artifacts are simply files, if the XML descriptor for a specific
> product wants to provide some sort of artifact type that would be just fine.
This may draw a smile in certain quarters - but have a look at 'URN's -
they solve very large parts of this puzzle cleanly; allow others to
mangage similar namespaces in paralleln (and have recently been made
operational in addr-arpa).
Dw