Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>I would like to caution everyone against working around a registry's built
>in identification mechanisms. By storing primary identifiers as Slots, we
>degrade the authority of the registry. Registries use the UUIDs as their
>primary identifier to objects, and in practice they are optimized more
>completely for operations involving intrinsic metadata. I've been involved
>in a complex technology integration involving ebXML registry, and a choice I
>am regretting is using Slots for things that could technically be addressed
>by attributes of RegistryObject or RegistryEntry.
>
>
>
Matt,
Is there anything in what you did that is due to a bad decision in the
specs? If so
please share so we consider improving the specs. In the specs we sometimes
use canonical Slots instead of attributes but it is relatively rare.
Also note that in the versioning proposal 0.3 we got rid of use of Slots
in favour of attributes
(comapred to version 0.2) for the very reasons you cite.
BTW please share your thoughts on versioning proposal 0.3 on that
thread. It would be good
if you have us benifit from the practical experience implementing it for
YDS registry.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
