On 2/1/10 9:13 AM, Kito Mann wrote:
There was a discussion about nested resource library names
last year. I would say to search the archives, but I don't know if
that's possible. Anyway, here was the outcome:
Ed:
Yes,
you are correct that the resource naming
scheme prevents nested
resource libraries. Nested
resource libraries were not on the list of
requirements when we designed this feature back in November of 2007. We
will not accept this requirement change at this point.
Dan:
So
the spec needs to at least be clear that it's not permitted and suggest
the alternative. Several people reading it didn't understand what to do
in this case.
IMHO, it's a shame that we can't use the nested
structure. Seems like a pretty obvious convention instead of
configuration thing. I don't know how that got missed in the design
process.
It would be interesting to find out why that was left out. Was it
simply an oversight, or are there technical reasons for disallowing
that? On the surface, it sounds like it would be easy to implement and
support, but I've not thought too deeply on the topic. Maybe that's
something we should fix, if we can, for 2.1.