On 2012-09-24 22:25, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Matthew Khouzam ([email protected]) wrote: >> Hi tracing paladins, >> I was going over the most recent CTF specs. I am curious, at the line: >> 1176 "model.emf.uri = "string";" this looks like a reference to >> something from eclipse modeling framework. >> http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/emf/javadoc/2.7.0/org/eclipse/emf/common/util/URI.html >> >> Is this part of the CTF specification? Shouldn't this be called >> model.uri or model_uri to respect the naming convention? > if we only call it model.uri, and come up with other model URIs that we > want to encode in the future (not emf-related), then we would be > stucked, wouldn't we ? > > What is the benefit of removing the "emf" part ? > I don't see the benifit of having the "emf". From what I see, its just an URI, so there is no real link to that an EMF. We could put any kind of model there?!?.
Also, why not just having a generic way to add a constant string to the event? Yannick _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
