The new type IDs are still bothering me a bit too (among other things, 
like the code namespaces).  A huge advantage of the old user-invented 
type names is that they were natural to understand and easy to remember. 
   We're going to have to do a lot of cutting and pasting, and when we 
get one digit wrong, will be tearing our hair out over it.  (Or the only 
option will be to use the GUI tool.)

Why not have a type/class have separate "secure" (crypto) ID, and name. 
  When you use a human-readable name in the UI client or in a XOD or 
whatever, VOS could just look up the OTD/record of the type/class and 
gets its crypto ID, and throw an error or ignore it if there are name 
conflicts or not found.  In the actual internal inter-object 
references/links it would use the crypto ID.

Also, what in the HelloWorld example is autogenerated and what isn't?


Lalo Martins wrote:
> Is there any rhyme or reason to site ids?
> If all libraries will ship a separate site (as XOD or something) with 
> their OTDs, won't that pollute the site id space?
> And aren't them bound to clash at some point?  Maybe set up a registry of 
> library site ids somewhere in the website?
> Or is this (library OTD) going to be substantially different later on?
> best,
>                                                Lalo Martins


vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to