On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter Uhn��k wrote:

>��I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.

Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled from a central repository.

So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar fashion.

You are correct that the MetaRepo could accomplish this using a ConfigurationOf (the current scheme basically does follow this model), but this is a bit of a hack ..

A better solution is to use a "project specification object" --- many other languages use their own flavor of "project specification object" to define the versions.

Having project specification objects means that a whole host of project meta data can be included in the object as first class objects without having to hack around with adding methods (by convention) to a ConfigurationOf

> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects

That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration.

I don't agree that this would be needlessly complex ... the implementation I use with tODE leverages gh-pages on github and STON ... having first class objects for project specifications, means that tools can be built to work directly with these objects, instead of loading a ConfigurationOf and hoping that the expected meta data is there ...

Dale