On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll(a)sun.com> wrote:
On 12/11/09 9:09 AM, Dan Allen wrote:
>
> Just to throw in another option, we could do jsfcc. That way, we qualify
> but still cut another character.
>
> Perhaps we need a vote.
>
> a) jsf:cc:whatevername
> b) cc:whatevername
> c) jsfcc:whatevername
>
> I vote for (c).
>
I prefer (a), if we expect that there will be other URNs that we define.
Do we expect that to happen?
If not, then I have a question about URNs: will the user be able to be
define others? (Sorry, my XML knowledge is woefully inadequate).
Sure. Any custom component library could standardize on a URN rather than a
full-blown URI. Whether it be us in the future or just a convention by
users.
If the user can define new ones, then I'd again prefer a),
otherwise, b).
I'd prefer to have either (a) or (b), since it matches existing
abbreviations - jsf, and cc. Having a new one, jsfcc, adds to the semantic
load of learning the API, which, I think, outweighs the advantage of losing
the extra character.
My second choice is (a), so if I lose on (c), I'll be happy with (a) too. I
think that (b) is just too vague.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen