Re: [regrep] [Issue] Should we separate single value vs. collection ofvalues slots?

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

In today's meeting Carl made an interesting suggestion that makes Slots 
even more OO.
He suggested that we represent the new collectionType attribute in 
RegRep 4 as sub-classes
of MultiValuedSlotType:

SlotType
   |----------- SingleValueSlotType
   |
   |----------- MultiValueSlotType
                  |-----------------------------ListSlotType
                  |-----------------------------BagSlotType
                  |-----------------------------SetSlotType
                                                       
|----------------SortedSetSlotType
   |----------- MapSlotType (keeps a Map of key/value pairs)
                 

Thank you Carl for the interesting suggestion and please correct me if I 
made any mistakes conveying your ideas.

What do other TC members think?

carl mattocks wrote:
>
> Yes - I think this is the right approach.. makes it more explicit when 
> a list of values is expected
>
>
> On 3/14/08, *Farrukh Najmi* <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com 
> <mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     A common issue I have seen in RegRep implementation and deployment is
>     that rim:SlotType defines a Collection of values on a SlotType but
>     often
>     a Slot only has a single value. I am wondering if it makes sense
>     for us
>     to separate these into two separate types derived form a common
>     type as
>     follows:
>
>
>     SlotType
>        |----------- SingleValueSlotType
>        |
>        |----------- MultiValueSlotType
>
>
>     IMHO, this is one of those peculiarities in our model that make it
>     harder to use. I believe we should fix it in 4.0 as we are already
>     making considerable improvements in Slots.
>
>     What do folks think?
>


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com