On 14 May 2010, at 11:35, Paul Sharples wrote: > On 14/05/2010 08:24, Scott Wilson wrote: >> On 14 May 2010, at 00:18, Randy Watler wrote: >> >> >>> Hey Gang, >>> >>> I noticed that SharedData and Participant are keyed back to the Widget >>> using the GUID field. This is in contrast to the preponderance of the >>> persistent data which is keyed to Widget via its object id. I assume there >>> is no objection to unifying this for all Widget relationships and using the >>> object id. Otherwise, let me know if the use of GUID for SharedData and >>> Participant was by design and I missed something along the way. Thanks! >>> >> The "sibling" definition for shared data and participants uses the rule of >> "same widget in same context". Now this could be keyed on Widget ID rather >> than Widget GUID if we can guarantee the stability of the ID - I think >> keying on GUID is simply because this should always be the same, even if the >> widget is unloaded and then reinstalled and gets another ID. However I don't >> think this should really be a problem, so keying on the ID should be fine. >> >> Unless Paul can think of a reason why we still need to do it this way? >> > Other than Scotts comments, I can't see any problem with using the id > instead. However, as a point of note, an earlier version of wookie didn't > have the GUID field in the shareddata table at least. I originally envisaged > shareddata to be associated with widgetinstances, rather than an actual > widget. Do we need to have either widgetid/guid in there at all? You can get > both of those values from widgetinstance.getWidget().
Wouldn't you then have to have multiple copies of the same data row in the table? After all a shareddata entry is shared by multiple instances. >> >>> Randy >>> >>> >> >
