OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sarif message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: "uri" vs. "location"

At TC #17, while discussing Issue #163 (“Add result.workItemLocation”), I pointed out that some “URI-valued” properties are represented as strings, while others are represented as fileLocation objects. I took an action to decide on a policy for deciding which type to use, and filed Issue #175, “Decide on policy for fileLocation vs. URI,” where I wrote:

We have two URI-like properties that are represented by URI-valued strings:

·         tool.downloadUri

·         versionControlDetails.uri (the URI of the repo)

... while all the others (14 of them) are represented by fileLocation objects, including:

·         result.workItemLocation

·         rule.helpLocation

Basically I've used fileLocation where there are potentially "many" of something (work items, rules), and URI-valued strings where there's only one of something (tool download location, VCS repo).

Is this a valid distinction? Even if you can rationalize it, is it confusing? Should we use fileLocationeverywhere?


Having thought about this some more, I think the approach we’ve taken so far makes sense: If there are potentially many of something, use fileLocation; if there’s only one of it, use a URI-reference-valued string.


I’m going to propose this at TC #19 (it’s too late to put it on the agenda for tomorrow’s TC #18).



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]