20 Jan
2010
20 Jan
'10
4:17 p.m.
On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 01/19/2010 05:35 PM, Anca Luca wrote:
This +1 means you don't agree with Thomas, Anca and me right? If so, could you justify
your answer?
Thanks
-Vincent
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
> 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