Re: [Bodington-developers] Facility-Resource mapping (was: HelloWorld negotiation)

[Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...>]

> Facility number and Object ID
ok, Object ID is Resource ID and is hard coded in Resource.java?
Where does Facility number come from? I heard that that's hard coded  
in the Resource but I can't find any examples.

> I think we're at a point where it could be maintained with a little  
> effort, and that will make
> future code more easily understood
then that's a ++ from me

once we've sorted the IDs, then it's working out what all those  
methods do, resourceMenuItem, ooh the pain! oh for some javadocs! but  
there will be once I get the HelloWorldResource working and documented.

Alistair


On 24 Jul 2006, at 12:06, Colin Tatham wrote:

>
> I think we need to make a decision before releasing 2.8 whether  
> we're going to keep the mapping
> between the Facility number and Object ID (to use Matthew's  
> terminology).
> I think we're at a point where it could be maintained with a little  
> effort, and that will make
> future code more easily understood (downside is that we have to  
> maintain the mapping in future tools.)
>
> The new ones in my Bod installation are:
>
>   type |         table_name
> ------+-----------------------------
>     56 | quick_links
>     59 | log_book_section_hierarchy
>     60 | log_book_question_hierarchy
>    105 | web_auth_user
>    106 | sp_auth_user
>    300 | peer_mark_papers
>    301 | peer_mark_questions
>    302 | peer_mark_responses
>    303 | peer_mark_results
>
> I'd say that the only one that needs changing is
>
> 106 | sp_auth_user
> as that's in the Oxford range.
>
> Arguably quick_links should be in either Oxford or UHI's range too...
>
>
> Would changing sp_auth_user cause anyone any headaches?
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
> Alistair Young wrote:
>>> HelloWorld facility should take 203
>>
>> concise answer, thanks Alexis!
>>
>> Alistair
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2006, at 10:48, Alexis O'Connor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Alistair Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 300-303 are used for the PeerMarker resources
>>>>
>>>> not according to our version of head Aggie!
>>>> RESOURCE_PEERMARKER = 300
>>>> or am I looking in the wrong place again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Facility and Resource IDs are completely unrelated
>>>>
>>>> Facility id? haven't seen any of them!
>>>>
>>>> HelloWorldResource.sql:
>>>> INSERT INTO classes (type, super_type, db_name, table_name,
>>>> java_class)
>>>> 	VALUES(28, 10, null, null,
>>>> 'org.bodington.server.resources.HelloWorldResource')
>>>> GO
>>>>
>>>> is "28" the Resource ID or the Facility ID then? I presume it's the
>>>> resource id.
>>>>
>>>> so what's the advice if any? is there any way to avoid collisions?
>>>> e.g. I've just chosen 301 but PeerMarker uses that although it's  
>>>> not
>>>> defined anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Alistair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> My take on the situtation is that if UHI have got facility numbers
>>> 201 - 300 and Aggie has
>>> 301 - 400, then:
>>>
>>> Peermarker should probably be bumped upto 301 (from 300).
>>> Alistairs HelloWorld facility should take 203, which is the next
>>> available number after
>>> 202 (Announcements) within the UHI range on bodington HEAD.
>>>
>>> Alexis
>
> -- 
> ____________________________________
> Colin Tatham
> VLE Team
> Oxford University Computing Services
>
> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/
> http://bodington.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to  
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn  
> cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? 
> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers