http://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2117
I'm planning my 0.6 work, but I don't think we've settled on a solution to this issue (and I'm not even sure that we need to). I've added the comment below to the bug:
Rather than have a design discussion in bugzilla ;-), I'm reopening the discussion here: Phillip, Lisa, Content-model folks -- your thoughts?The original report said that it's possible for developers to misunderstand how to implement extensions to our content model, by subclassing Item (or ContentItem, or ChandlerItem, whatever) instead of creating a Mixin that holds just their thing's attributes.
Phillip makes interesting suggestions about a way to significantly rethink the content model: that is, to do stamping by adding references to the formerly-mixin class instead of doing actual mix-in merging to build a new type, but I don't see how this new arrangement fixes the original problem: - there's still a developer documentation issue about what you need to create to add your own new thing - it complicates things by requiring a new attribute/method lookup mechanism to traverse the ActionItems and ObjectItem, or requires special lookup calls for anyone who wants to use the them. - it's not clear that the new generality would give us enough control to implement Mimi's rules for how stamped types interact (that is, we'd still need the same special-cases at stamping time). - it doesn't solve the issues that Lisa brings up in the email thread, relating to exporting of stamped items to iCalendar servers.
...Bryan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
