David RR Webber wrote:
>I hope this is the last and final time we have to have this discussion
>around erroneous use of UUID values as external linkage identifiers
>to registry content - they are for INTERNAL use only - and should
>be used for such programmatic pointer uses only within the API
>to registry.
>
I respectfully disagree. The UUID based URN (urn:uuid:....) should be
used to
uniquely reference an object internally or externally. I agree that for
human
consumption you may want some ExternalIdentifier such as a human
friendly URN.
But strictly for reference purposes (internal or external to registry) I
still
suggest using UUID based URNs.
>I understand the tempatation to make your Java code
>easier to write by burying all these UUIDs into the access method
>to the registry - as a quick kludge - but you have to remember the
>central tenet of computer software - its supposed to make work
>easier for human operators - not harder! Not to mention the
>ludicrous overhead associated with a 128 byte boat anchor to
>what is often less than 30 bytes of information....
>
>
Oops, I think you meant to say a "16 byte boat anchor" not a "128 byte
boat anchor".
Which is definitely less than "30 bytes of information".
To be clear... A UUID is 16 bytes not 128 bytes.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
