[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: many-to-many

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:29:33 -0500
• In-reply-to: <oprjmaeywfezizxn@s...>

mc@x... (Mike Champion) writes:
>FWIW, I learned a "code review antipattern" long ago: "If a variable
>or function has 'thing' or 'stuff' in its label, it's a strong
>indication that the author doesn't know what exactly it is or is
>supposed to do."   This thread is making me think that 'resource'
>should be added to that list 
>:-)

I think some of that is true for resource, but I think the simpler
problem is that resource is an abstraction that's pretty much
all-inclusive.  

Trying to express everything a resource could be is basically
impossible, so while the notion has merit in some cases where you are
talking about everything, it makes it very difficult in cases where you
need a finer-grained description or need to apply limits.

That, of course, leads to permathreads, but at least the subject header
of this message has made it much easier for me to relax. 

 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Next by Date: Re: Is Resource/Representation a fruitful abstraction? (was Re: many-to-many)
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread