[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [higgins-dev] My position on EntityId
|
Those are indeed unique, but neither is guaranteed to produce you on the
other end. I'm trying to think of some real world identifiers that
are!
>>> Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> 09/17/08 9:21 AM >>>
So the use case is that an Entity can be located by multiple
EntityIDs,
much like you do today, you can call my cell number (which is unique)
or my
office phone (which is unique) and you get me on the other end
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
From: Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: higgins-dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09/17/2008 09:27 AM
Subject: [higgins-dev] My position on EntityId
I have added my thoughts here:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/EntityId_Requirements
Here is a summary of my position (expressed in more detail on the wiki
page):
I am open to supporting the *moral equivalent* of 0..n
EntityIds that
Tony desires but I need someone to present at least one
real-world
use-case to motivate it (I*ve not been able to come up with
one).
By *moral equivalent* I mean:
0..1 *canonical* EntityId. This EntityId is unique AT
LEAST
within the scope of its containing Context. This EntityId
MUST
be immutable.
0..n synonyms. These are represented as 0..n values of a
new
defined Attribute type called something like
higgins:synonym
-Paul _______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
