avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: [vote] context key string format
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:13:51 GMT
Leo,

I saw Pete's comments.  I, personally, don't agree with him and I didn't see
him veto the approach, hence my summary.

By parsable, I mean in accordance with the RFC into the urn:NID:NSS parts.
The NID gets you to the namespace, which should be useful for scalable
container context and with component registration, the NSS is handled by the
namespace and can certainly be a simple key.  In other words, the contract
for the NSS is provided by the namespace definition, and can be as
restrictive as desired.

RFC 2141 keys provide a standard that allows any namespace to treat it as an
opaque key, and allows for application flexibilty within a namespace if it
so requires, which means that it ought to accommodate future requirements
without change.

By the way, SOAP uses RFC 2141.

	--- Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Simons [mailto:leosimons@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:21
To: Avalon Developers List
Subject: RE: [vote] context key string format


Pete said:

"I don't think it is useful to add in this class as keys are opaque
strings (much like keys to services). The keys are thus unparsed
entitys. I also think that prefixing with "urn" does not add value
because all entrys will presumably do this."

some context key concerns:
- they are unambiguous (ie unique)
- they are well-known
- they are documented
- they are as human readable as possible
- there is not other contract besides being an instance of
java.lang.String

the first goals are supportive of URNs, while the last one means that it
might actually be best to leave that undocumented because we don't want
to imply contracts that are not there.

IOW, the visual clue is good, the "parsable" is not. The context key is
not to be parsed in any way; ie the only thing to do with a context key
is do equals() on it.

hence my doubts :D

cheers,

- Leo

On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 10:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Leo,
>
> Looked like 3 +1 and no vetoes from my count earlier.
>
> Having domains should prove useful with the scalable server.  The "urn:"
> prefix is part of the RFC and provides both a visual clue as a well as
> parsable information.
>
> 	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message