On Jun 5, 2013 6:21 PM, "Ben Reser" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >>> or even better,
> >>>
> >>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
> >>>
> >>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> or even better,
>>>
>>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
>>>
>>> as the format of the notifications does not in fact imply an
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> or even better,
>>
>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
>>
>> as the format of the notifications does not in fact imply any kind of
>> publish/subscribe architecture. You could crea
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.06.2013 04:07, Ben Reser wrote:
>> I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. But I guess not.
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> You guys are over-thinking it. Simply state this format is ASF-wide
>>> and
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Anyway, wrt concerns raised so far, I'll mention a few more permutations:
application/vnd.svn-pubsub+json
application/vnd.pubsub-stream+json
application/vnd.svn-pubsub-stream+json
The next dot-separated component after "vnd" should be a vendor
name. "a
On 02.06.2013 04:07, Ben Reser wrote:
> I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. But I guess not.
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> You guys are over-thinking it. Simply state this format is ASF-wide
>> and be done with it.
> Okay but should we ask anyone before we
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 07:07:10PM -0700, Ben Reser wrote:
> I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. But I guess not.
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > You guys are over-thinking it. Simply state this format is ASF-wide
> > and be done with it.
>
> Okay but shou
I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. But I guess not.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> You guys are over-thinking it. Simply state this format is ASF-wide
> and be done with it.
Okay but should we ask anyone before we go and start using something
like application/
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Hmm. Why would the media-type vary based on ${project} ?
>>
>> It seems like all you would need is application/vnd.apache.pubsub.json
>>
>> Is there a reason for something more than that?
>
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Hmm. Why would the media-type vary based on ${project} ?
>
> It seems like all you would need is application/vnd.apache.pubsub.json
>
> Is there a reason for something more than that?
The vendor tree media-types are somewhat undefined as far a
Hmm. Why would the media-type vary based on ${project} ?
It seems like all you would need is application/vnd.apache.pubsub.json
Is there a reason for something more than that?
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Right now the SVNPubSub server serves NUL separated JSO
Right now the SVNPubSub server serves NUL separated JSON data as
text/plain. This is clearly wrong. But application/json would be
just as wrong. I'd prefer that we use something more specific than
application/octet-stream.
On IRC we've been discussing applying for a vendor tree media-type
regis
12 matches
Mail list logo
