[Sugar-devel] On datastore object IDs

[Benjamin M. Schwartz]

Eben Eliason wrote:
> I agree
> we send off the object without the history and action associations,
> and basically lives as the root of a new tree (new tree_id), and
> associated with an "Received [object] from [friend]" action. It's
> unclear to me that the person who sent this should also create a new
> object with a new tree_id. I think not, actually.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  My point is merely that the unique
identifier (tree_id, version_id) is not a global identifier.  It will not
work for Walter's problem of maintaining inter-object references while
transferring objects over the network, because the tree_id will be
different on the other side.

>> It sounds like you want case 3:
>>>> If back-references aren't stored in the Document's metadata, then either
> 
> The hypothetical in case 3 is that we don't store the info in the
> metadata. I'm suggesting that we still store it in metadata, but that
> the activity itself isn't the one in charge of handling it.

Ok.  Maybe we need some new vocabulary like "read/write metadata" vs.
"read-only metadata".  Action<->Document references would have to live in
"read-only" metadata, managed by the Datastore.

--Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090702/eb53a9c5/attachment.pgp