On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
David,True, no problem hardcoding it because it's just a suggested default that can be manually overridden by the user. But it's not trivial for those who need to automatically create HUNDREDS of variants at once!And for other users who also need to create huge numbers of variants at once, it'll be a pain to manually replace my separator '-' with say '--'.
The "huge numbers" is what catches my attention here. Usually when huge numbers are involved custom requirements and patterns come along for the ride. In other words, we could guess all we want about the variations that people might want in the future for something like this, but unless we have a number of examples or existing requirements to design to we're not going to get a very good hit rate.
Which is why for something like this, hard coding is even more thrilling and sexy than a custom XML config file... ;)
-David
David E. Jones wrote:This isn't a universal policy or anything, but I'd say for something minor like this there isn't a problem with hard-coding it. The whole point of the ID generation is to make the IDs unique. In the UI you can specify an ID instead of using the default, so it only matters so much.-David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
