Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com>]

> >         My point is, each component needs IDL namespace allocation
> > already, hence since we already are maintaining a unique namespace for
> > IDL, we might as well use the same for OAFIDs / oafinfos, instead of some
> > totaly different scheme.
> 
> I think you are simply wrong about this. I think there will be a lot
> of useful components that don't implement any interfaces besides the
> standard Bonobo ones.

I think the confussion comes from the fact that Michael wants to use
the same namespace for two different things.  Lets separate them.

	1. The name space for naming interfaces.  I think we have all
           agreed and jumped on this boat.

	2. A naming space for naming components.  He has suggested to
           `base it' or `inspire it' on the above.

For instance, say I have Gnumeric that implements the
`IDL:GNOME/Gnumeric/Workbook:1.0' interface, the OAFID of this guy
could be `GNOME/Gnumeric/Workbook:1.0' (note that there is no IDL in
the prefix).

This works wonders for Gnumeric.  The case you raise is the tricky
one, what about a component that is just a different implementation of
a stock interface, say `IDL:Bonobo/Storage:1.0', well, this component
would not obvioulsy be called Bonobo/Storage:1.0, that would be a bad
idea, it could be called:

	org/sun/com/whatever/mycomponent:1.0

If we dont like Gnumric to polute the OAFID space for GNOME, we could
just use the same naming convention:

	org/gnome/gnumeric/Workbook:1.0

The issue being, that although inspired by the name space for the
IDLs, it can not be a copy, as they do represent different things, and
as you correctly point out there will be multiple implementations of
an interface.

Now.  I believe the issue of uniqueness is not going to come up if we
have a few guidelines for constructing the OAFID name space (and still
manage to not use the ugly uuids).

> It's a lot easier for two developers working completely independently
> to accidentally pick the same human-readable string name than to
> accidentally pick the same UUID; the latter is more or less impossible
> short of doing it intentionally.

But this will hardly ever happen.  There are few binaries that are
called /usr/bin/ls.  By being more verbose on the name we can avoid
this issue completely (for instance, by saying that the org/gnome
registry would be managed by the GNOME foundation).

Love, love, love,
Miguel.