I like Brendan's idea of DNS URIs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Potts) writes:
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> a nsIRequest is just that - an abstract request. It could be network
> related, or it could be computation related. The 'name' associated with
> a request is meant to be a readable identifier (that could end up in a
> list of active requests for example)
>
> In the case of a network request (ie. an nsIChannel) there is *also* a
> URI. But in the case of layout requests (ie. layout computation) there
> is not.
>
> If you want to promote URI up to request and say that every request
> *must* have a URI. I guess that's fine. But to me doing so sounds much
> more like brendan's 'universal hammer' :-)
>
> What's wrong with having a name identifier? It seems simpler than
> creating wacky protocols for all of our computations!
>
> On the other hand, maybe we should turn layout into a protocol - then we
> could invoke reflows via the 'layout-reflow://' protocol :-)
Aren't you thinking of URIs a little too narrowly here? A URI is not
necessarily just a protocol handle; it's _exactly_ what you're looking
for: a "readable" "name identifier" string for a resource. It just
happens to use a specific structure.
If we do decide to go this route, some thoughts on defining new URI
schemes for mozilla can be found in
<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69513>
Dan
--
