Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com> writes:

> 
> We can't change repo IDs anyways, and nobody except maybe Maciej will
> randomize their .oafinfo filenames. That leaves IIDs.

I have no intention of trying to change the repoIDs, or randomize
filenames, just for the record.

> IIDs need to be reasonably unique. UUIDs achieve this goal in a rather
> extreme way that is ugly to at least some of us. :) Using interface names
> to *add* to the uniqueness of an IID might be a valid approach - I'm not
> sure if you are advocating this, or promoting using a repoID as the whole
> body of the IID.
> 
> I'm totally against enforcing any specific format (such as UUIDs) for IIDs
> (besides prefixing them with 'OAFIID:'). I think people are smart enough
> to make things unique in their own unique way, if you stress this
> requirement to them.

OAF does not enforce the recommended format in any technical way. It's
just the format I recommend people use. Anyone with sufficiently
extreme views can ignore the recommendation, just as they could refuse
to use studlyCaps for IDL method names; but it's better to follow the
recommendation and keep the system consistent I think.

I can update the recommendation to suggest hierarchical namespacing of
the portion before the UUID. I don't plan to change things to enforce
any given format at this time.

 - Maciej