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).

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 P.S. I haven't made my mind yet.

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).

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

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). 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 P.S. I haven't made my mind yet. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs