Re: summary of the previous thread on oaf IIDs (as I remember it)

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Mathieu Lacage <mathieu eazel com> writes:

> hi all,
> 
> Ok, I do not really care what convention is used for IIDs. I just want it 
> to work well so here is what I recall on the previous discussion on this topic.
> This might help us to make a better choice.
> 
>         - OAF has a requirement: IIDs HAVE to be unique across all the components
>         of the known universe. UUIDs guaranty this with a _high_ probablity.
> 
>         - UUIDs are difficult to type and remmeber.
> 
>         - namespacing rules to build IIDs allow more easy to remmeber and type IIDs.
>         This also guaranties a _high_ probability of uniqueness provided you control
>         the namespace and its allocation.

I'd suggest the following:

        - we keep the current UUID convention

        - we allow people to leave away the uuid part in all
          OAF queries.

So, for instance, internally the thingie will still have

        OAFIID:eog_image:20fecf27-a66e-4e0d-bb87-d519a5693ba1

but you can ask OAF for just `OAFIID:eog_image' (in this case we'd need to
namespace this to become `OAFIID:gnome_eog_image') and it'll work.

How does this sound ?

-- 
Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)