On 12/07/2012 07:53 PM, pablo pazos wrote: > For a development environment: I NEED archetypes on my file system > with names that I can understand, I can give several reasons for that > but I'm sure everyone understands this requirement. >
Hi Pablo, The filename you store your archetype in, that can be anything, that is your decision. The Locatable does not point to the filename, but to the ID. A possible solution would be to have an extension on your workstation-filesystem which reads the archetype-properties together with the filenames. That kind of extensions are in Windows available for images (displaying parts of the EXIF information, and even previews). Many professional gr Also there are extensions for CVS, SVN and GIT, to show the status of a file. I think this kind of extensions are also possible for Apple and Linux. You can even make money with writing such an extension (plugin). Also external applications, for example the ADL-workbench-alike could help. But I see that you recognize the problem, and I see you favor for the IOD-solution. I have read from others which favor for namespaces combined with the obvious concepts. I don't see the one fighting the other, they can coexist. The first thought is that because the ID should be meaningless, and if people put meaning in it in a safe way, there should be no problem. But I think the namespace solution is dangerous, because in large organizations, like universities, people can write archetypes inside the same namespace and clashes are still possible. In my perception, the OID-solution would be the best, because that is the only way you really can be sure that every ID is unique. This is also worldwide recognized. And concepts, RM-name, that kind of things should be properties. regards Bert
