On 27 July 2010 23:57, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@codewiz.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 18:21 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > >> This is a nicely decentralized mechanism for choosing identifiers >> which are guaranteed by construction never to conflict. > > It is indeed a simple and nice scheme, but why is such uniqueness a > desiderable feature when developers can--and in fact *do*--often > distribute forks of existing activities? > > Lucian has just created a fork of Browse and ParaguayEduca has a fork of > XoIRC and VncLauncher on its wiki. In all cases, the bundle_id was > intentionally left unmodified to ensure upgrades would work.
Actually, after careful consideration I've rebranded Browse-webkit to Surf. > (if the bundle_id were instead changed, funny things would happen when a > user tries to install both bundles on the same machine). > > >> If sugarlabs is willing to maintain a mechanism for ensuring >> uniqueness, feel free to prepend org.sugarlabs to whatever activities >> you have "registered". > > A good surrogate could be that no two activities with the same name can > be uploaded to ASLO. > > Without a fancy scheme for signed bundles, nothing forbids people from > distributing bundles with conflicting names from other sites, regardless > of what uniqueness scheme gets chosen. > > >> > For all other purposes, the bundle_id is just a string which could >> > contain anything. The bundle_id "org.tuxpaint.sugar-is-lame" worked >> > flawlessly for all this time. >> >> Yes, this identifier is childish, but conforms precisely to the rules >> outlined above, which ensure its uniqueness. > > It's not actually conforming, it has hyphens! ;-) > > -- > // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ > \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel