At first I was on the side of making ids 64bit, signed long, for performance reasons.
But the more I think of it, if this is going to be true opensocial, then I truly believe the ids have to be the "GUID" that you mention below, and essentially uris, but up to the container, really along the lines of OpenId. Not the most optimal on our databases.. but it's kinda a requirement. But I don't like the idea of the "UUID" as you mentioned below. I don't see how that can actually be adopted nor implemented by the social networks.. plus that means that ids could change for people.. since maybe you start with P1/orkut, P2/facebook, then later they get annealed into P3/global?? Anyhow.. something that won't go into the basic standard.. but maybe you can discuss this for later versions.. :) On Nov 8, 2007 8:48 PM, RickMeasham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (This is here as a place to discuss the relevent wish on the wishlist) > > At the moment the OWNER and VISITOR IDs are local to the container > owner. This makes it difficult to manage users on any backend systems. > > I propose one of two ideas and open them here for discussion: > > A) A GUID for each user in the form <local_id>@<container domain>. For > example: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This allows each container host to use their own internal IDs still, > but means we won't have clashes when user 782634827 from orkut and > user 782634827 from ning both install the app. > > B) A UUID the represents a human *universally*. For example: KS2K-T298- > QWPA-2CKJ > > This means that if I install the same app on Orkut and Ning, then it > recognises that I'm the same person and so ties the two together > neatly. > > Option B would need to also give a 'container id' to the app in order > to allow an app to treat a single user as two separate entities if > need be. Including "I see you already have this app at Orkut. Would > you like to use the same information here on Ning?" > > (No matter which option is preferred, I'd still like to see a > container ID available even if it's just extracted from the domain in > option A) > > What do you think? As an app developer and probably app user, does one > option appeal to you more than the other? Is there an option C that > would be better? > > Cheers! > Rick Measham > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-api?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
