On 26/08/2010, at 9:26 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > Le 26/08/2010 10:19, Scott Gray a écrit : >> Hi Erwan, >> >> Why the unnecessary changes? All that was needed to change was fix the >> ConditionObject constructor. It should have been checking for "field" and >> then falling back to "field-name" (for backwards compatibility reasons), >> there was no need to change the schemas and I think the previous attribute >> name was more consistent. >> >> And I definitely don't agree with backporting unnecessary schema changes to >> 10.04. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> > Hi Scott, > > no problem for reverting on the 10.04, it's on its way. But for trunk, I > really think the new names are more consistent than the previous ones. Once > again, if this is not ok with you, then I will look at another way to make > this work. > > Cheers, > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz
Thanks Erwan, About the attribute name, there was effort put in not so long ago (maybe 2 years?) to get the attribute names more consistent. One of those efforts was to rename all attributes that expect a context field name to "field". This attribute was changed at that time but a bug was introduced because the underlying code wasn't updated to reflect the change. What is it about "object-name" that you feel is more consistent than the "field" attribute which is used heavily? In the simple-methods schema there are currently no attributes called "object-name", although there are two named "event-request-object-name" and "event-response-object-name" (I'm not sure what they do). For the "field", we have 35 attribute definitions. Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
