Am 09.03.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Mike Schrag:
>>> Why couldn't one use a randomly generated unique ID that is ten characters
>>> long (or so)? There *could* be name collision but the chances would be
>>> small. Alternatively, why not invent a "context sequence" that starts at 1
>>> and counts up
the WO app
instance is that you don't have to ask the unix sysadmin to modify any
server settings, just grab a new .woa and go.
Thanks,
-- Aaron
From: Ramsey Gurley
To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com
Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com
Date: 03/09/2011 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: S
>> Why couldn't one use a randomly generated unique ID that is ten characters
>> long (or so)? There *could* be name collision but the chances would be
>> small. Alternatively, why not invent a "context sequence" that starts at 1
>> and counts up throughout the Request-Response loop? That would
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote:
> Hello fellow WOrriors,
>
> Have you ever looked at the names given to WO input fields such as
> WOTextFields? They could look like one of the following:
>
> name="0.15.37.1.1.1.0.0.3"
>
> name="0.15.37.1.5.7.1.21.1.29.270710975
You'll blow up components that rely on the dot notation implying nesting
structure (WORepetition begin a notable victim). You might be able to get away
with only generating "parentid.childid", though? You could also pack these into
a value a lot shorter than ascii versions of decimal numbers.
O
Hello fellow WOrriors,
Have you ever looked at the names given to WO input fields such as
WOTextFields? They could look like one of the following:
name="0.15.37.1.1.1.0.0.3"
name="0.15.37.1.5.7.1.21.1.29.270710975.3.1.1.3.8.1.0.5"
They tend to get longer the more times they are nested inside o
