On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael Hunger wrote: >> >> I also wanted to suggest that perhaps instead of an xml serialization of >> value composites JSON may be better suited? Smaller and already using string >> serialization representation for values. > > I think you might be right on this one. Hm.. would we then skip the hashing > and go for the plain names instead? Maybe it's better to do the name > mungling and schema management on a higher level and keep the data itself > simple.
The idea of the hashes was to get relatively short names that are unique. If we do fullnames, we need; 1. Declaration package name. (5-50 characters) 2. Interface name. (1-20 characters) 3. Interface version. (3-8 characters) 4. Property Name. (1-20 characters) Otherwise, I don't think we can be sure it is the same property. It becomes a very long string. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
