Pete said: "I don't think it is useful to add in this class as keys are opaque strings (much like keys to services). The keys are thus unparsed entitys. I also think that prefixing with "urn" does not add value because all entrys will presumably do this."
some context key concerns: - they are unambiguous (ie unique) - they are well-known - they are documented - they are as human readable as possible - there is not other contract besides being an instance of java.lang.String the first goals are supportive of URNs, while the last one means that it might actually be best to leave that undocumented because we don't want to imply contracts that are not there. IOW, the visual clue is good, the "parsable" is not. The context key is not to be parsed in any way; ie the only thing to do with a context key is do equals() on it. hence my doubts :D cheers, - Leo On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 10:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Leo, > > Looked like 3 +1 and no vetoes from my count earlier. > > Having domains should prove useful with the scalable server. The "urn:" > prefix is part of the RFC and provides both a visual clue as a well as > parsable information. > > --- Noel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
