Tres Seaver wrote:
who's the CTO?
Jim is.
Okay, I get the joke now :-)
* "persistent" references are effectively required to be immortal: it is _mandated_ that one be able to stringify the IOR, copy it to a piece of paper, put the paper in a bottle, and cast it on the waves; whoever opens the bottle should be able to transcribe the IOR, reify the reference from the string, and communicate with the object (which may be an entirely new "incarnation" created just for this request).
This is the sort of persistent reference I meant, it's one of the reasons I like CORBA as a model ;-)
A general-purpose, persistable reference in Zope pretty much has to be represented as an absolute containment path
I don't agree. What happens when you move an object? The object doesn't change so why should its persistent reference? In a similar way, what happens when an object moves between storages? I reckon it should have the same POID...
A man with one watch knows what time it is; A man with two is never sure.
That's not quite what I meant... An object is unique. It's aquisition context may give it more attributes to play with, but at the end of the day it is a seperate entity. This entity should have a unique, global identifier; it's POID. I think putting a path in front of this identifies the context, but doesn't really do a lot to identify the object. I guess my view depends on _data_ being stored in the object rather than acquired. Is this the case? cheers, Chris