Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:

> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-components-list/2000-November/msg00179.html
> > 
> > Just wondering whether you all like it or whether I don't get any flames
> > about it ....
> 
> If those things are equivalent, then why not remove the UUID
> completely?  It seems that it is some sort of subset of what the
> `begins_with' hack that was described before.  
> 
> Again, my vote for removing the UUID part.
> 

They are not equivalent. Martin's suggestion is, in effect, that you
have your full unique ID and then a shorter alias, and whenever you
activate by the alias, you account for the fact that you are risking
ambiguity.

The shorter alias happens to be very similar to the unique ID, in this
case, since we have the ability to put a human-readable component in
the unique ID.

 - Maciej