Hi Sergiu,
On 01/20/2010 05:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 01/19/2010 05:35 PM, Anca Luca wrote:
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
+1 is for enforcing entities to have free names? (i.e. adding names to objects
in the future)
or for refactoring to support entities that don't have free names?
Thanks,
Anca
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