On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz<bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > Walter Bender wrote: >> Presumably the objects themselves have unique ids, a la git, so that >> we can refer to the same object from multiple trees and by multiple >> users? (e.g., when I share something with you, it still has the same >> name.) > > Hmmm. > > So there are two issues here: > > 1. blob uuid. Each object may own a blob, and if two objects own > identical blobs, then there's no good reason to store them separately on > disk. Something like this is used in git, I suspect. In our case, I > cannot think of any reason to expose the uuid outside the datastore > itself. It might be useful for accelerating various forms of > object-sharing and backup, but those operations are still "behind the > curtain". > > 2. Some sort of object name. I think I agree with you that each object > should probably have a user-editable name or title. We certainly need > something like this for the Actions, and so it makes enough sense to > extend it to objects. However, I think that we can keep this as it > currently is: a metadata attribute like any other. When I share an object > with you, it may get a new tree_id and a version_id of 1, but it keeps all > its metadata, including its title. > > --Ben > >
I think I was getting at something simpler, as related to your (1) above. In git, an object is unique, whether or not I pulled it, as long as I don't modify it. So I can always refer to it, even if I wasn't the one who created it. So I'd like to be able to extend (1) to include objects I share. Use case: I send you a presentation that refers to objects in the datastore. I need to send you those objects too, but I would not like to have to use some additional layer of reference. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel