RE: [cgmo-webcgm] layername

[Dieter Weidenbrück <dieter@itedo.com>]

you are right, and I am not strongly for it.

What came to my mind is that "BindByName" works for "name" and "layername"
at the same time, so it would have been nice to call them the same.
However, the other differences you pointed out are more important.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:56 PM
> To: dieter@itedo.com
> Cc: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] layername
> 
> At 10:10 AM 9/6/2005 +0200, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
> >Hi Franck,
> >
> >yes, I know. On the other hand, we have so many things now 
> that are not 
> >backwards compatible, one more wouldn't really matter.
> 
> I disagree (strongly).
> 
> In (most) cases where we have created non-backward 
> compatibility, we were driven by some particular functional 
> gain, and usually did it reluctantly.  Changing layername to 
> name gains us nothing.  (And would force us to do a bunch of 
> editing, to change 1.0 test cases, and to change
> implementations.)
> 
> About Ben's original question:  layername is listed as 
> readonly in the ApsAttr table of 5.7.6.  In this sense, it is 
> like 'name', and that is why it isn't allowed in the XCF.
> 
> If you look at 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.2.4, you will see that 
> layername differs from name in substantive technical details 
> (e.g., layername is required, name is optional).  So there 
> are technical reasons not to combine them.
> 
> Btw...  it would be interesting if someone would compile a 
> list of 2.0 changes that are non-backward-compatible with 
> 1.0.  Volunteer?
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DULUC, Franck [mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:07 AM
> > > To: dieter@itedo.com; Cruikshank, David W; Benoit Bezaire; 
> > > cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] layername
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Haven't we said layername for backward compatibility with 1.0? (I 
> > > think it was during Cologne Meeting).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Franck
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Dieter Weidenbrück [mailto:dieter@itedo.com] Envoyé :
> > > mardi 6 septembre 2005 07:32 À : 'Cruikshank, David W'; 'Benoit 
> > > Bezaire'; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Objet :
> > > RE: [cgmo-webcgm] layername
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we consider renaming this attribute to "name" for 
> this reason?
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
> > >
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 7:16 AM
> > > > To: Benoit Bezaire; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] layername
> > > >
> > >
> > > >  It seems to me that the layername attribute, for the layer
> > >
> > > > APS, is equivalent to the name attribute to the other
> > >
> > > > structures.  It should be readonly and the test should work
> > >
> > > > like the one for name.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Thx...Dave
> > > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 6:37 AM
> > > > To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] layername
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > >
> > > > What happened to layername? Section: 3.2.1.2 Layer says:
> > > > Description. The 'layer' APS declares that the graphical
> > >
> > > > content within this APS and any valid nested APS ('grobject',
> > >
> > > > 'para', and 'grnode', but not 'layer') belong to the layer
> > >
> > > > identified by the contained 'layername'
> > > > APS attribute.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > but it's not in the XCF. I understand that apsid is its
> > >
> > > > equivalent, but there is no mentioning of it in the XCF chapter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > We have a test in the test suite for it, but the test tries
> > >
> > > > to set a new layername and to remove layername. With the
> > >
> > > > discussion we are having now on exception handling, it seems
> > >
> > > > like that test would throw a few errors (assuming that
> > >
> > > > layername is readonly).
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > >  Benoit                 mailto:benoit@itedo.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This mail has originated outside your organization, 
> either from an 
> > > external partner or the Global Internet.
> > > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It 
> may contain 
> > > privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must not 
> > > copy, distribute, disclose or use any of the information 
> in it. If 
> > > you have received it in error please delete it and immediately 
> > > notify the sender.
> > > Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be 
> > > accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system 
> management 
> > > and security reasons. This access is controlled under 
> Regulation of 
> > > Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.
> > >
> 
> 
>