On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > On 01/19/2010 05:35 PM, Anca Luca wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> Short story: >> >> In the new model, does it make sense to support entities that don't have an >> unique name to be identified in their 'context'? (so-called 'free name', as >> in >> free thought). > > +1
This +1 means you don't agree with Thomas, Anca and me right? If so, could you justify your answer? Thanks -Vincent > >> WDYT? >> >> Long story: >> >> For example, in the current model, an object is an example of entity that >> does >> _not_ have a free name: in a document (its context), an object is identified >> by >> two values: the name of the class of the object and the 'object number'. An >> object cannot be differentiated by a single name among all the objects of a >> document. >> As opposed to this, a document does have a free name to identify it in the >> list >> of documents in a space, namely the page name. The same, an attachment's >> name is >> unique among the attachments of a page, etc. >> >> Note that the discussion is about a human-readable and accessible name for an >> entity, for example, using a GUID or other 'identifier' is not an option, >> since >> they are not manipulable by humans (for example to create a reference to >> such an >> entity). >> >> Also note that, even if supporting it is the best solution (which covers all >> cases anyway), we want to make sure it's necessary, since it would involve >> some >> refactoring. >> >> Thanks, >> Anca _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
