[Schevo-devel] Why extent names instead of extent instances?

[Matthew Scott]

On 12/9/05, Tom Locke <tom at livelogix.com> wrote:
> You wouldn't need that new namespace for that example would you, you'd
> just use db.PhoneNumber.name wouldn't you?

This is because the extent namespace isn't clean:

http://schevo.org/class-schevo.extent.Extent.html

Thus, the 'f' namespace

Side note - we deliberately made all namespaces single-letters (except
for 'sys', which arguably could be shortened to 's' now that I think
of it) so that we could attach them anywhere without cluttering their
parent namespace, and they only require two more keystrokes :)

By keeping the namespaces consistently named across all types of
parents, it's easy to form mnemonic associations between a small
handful of single letters and what each letter means.


> That's taking the idea a step further. I like it. Am I right that:
>
> >>> db.PhoneNumber.f.person is db.PhoneNumber.field_spec["person"]
> True
>
> ?
>

Correct.  With the addition that the field class would be tagged with
its name and associated extent, since those would be needed.


--
Matthew R. Scott