Hi all, It will be beneficial to both container developers and container users if identical functionality placed into the context can be found using identical context key formats.
It will also be beneficial to have namespace separation in the context keys to avoid clashes where the functionality is not the same but the context key is. This was discussed back in august, and recently brought up again. Noel suggested we adopt the IETF standard RFC 2141 by reference. I think it is a good idea and I've seen no evidence other people don't. Therefore, I propose we incorporate RFC 2141 by reference as the preferred way of formatting context keys. here's my +1. If no-one objects, I will add a documentation snippet to the coding standards and find or write a utility class for making it easy to properly parse RFC 2141-formatted strings (probably org.apache.avalon.framework.context.ContextUtil). Comments -------- First of, I said "preferred way". I don't think there is a need to make it a requirement that context keys are formatted this way; that would also cause backward compatibility problems. RFC 2141 is a specification of the format of URNs, universal resource identifiers. A urn consists of a case insensitive prefix, "urn:", followed by a case-insensitive alphanumeric namespace (domain) part, a ":", and then an opaque key which can contain most characters (I believe ? # and one or two others are excempt). Refer to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt for details. Example keys could be urn:avalon-info:work.directory urn:avalon-merlin:blahaahaahat urn:avalon-brazil:current.time urn:avalon-phoenix:home.directory cheers, - Leo Simons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
