higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008
To: Higgins dev
Subject: [higgins-dev] Data Model:
Mixed attr types or not
is the thread for discussing what started with http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03722.html
far, we have these inputs:
understand that each of an attribute's values are always the same data type.
I think in general this keeps things simple and is what's likely expected
by new users. I also think that allowing mixed types will cause lots of
head scratching when values are being compared for equivalence (since two equal
values are not allowed on the same attribute.
assumed they would all be the same type.
reports that HOWL doesn't enforce same-typed values, and that in fact, it
states that in the Higgins Data Model, they are all the same type, and is
working to fix the HOWL.
would like to allow for different types.
pointed at the ITU definition of GeneralName as an example of why we might want
to allow different types. He (as well as Daniel) further notes that in
solving this kind of example, it's best to retain the original type/value
pairing -- otherwise you loose the original type.
last comment was Jan 8 http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03736.html
the current expectation and understanding is that values are of the same type.
There is some belief that allowing different types would be a good thing.
feel compelled to address bug #190594 in terms of the way the data model is
known/understood to behave today, and make adjustments to if if/when we decide
to allow values to be varied in their data types.
anyone disagree with that? If not, I'll fix the bug as prescribed.