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
