[PEAK] peak.naming question

[Andy Gross]

On Dec 22, 2004, at 12:36 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> This is a bit off topic, but in general, '//' in a URL is intended to 
> designate a naming *authority*, rather than a name.  There are some 
> PEAK URLs that allow a '//' for something that is not an authority, 
> but these date from before Ty and I understood the name vs. authority 
> distinction.  In general, the URL RFC's do not recommend using '//' 
> when you are not beginning something with a hostname, or some other 
> "universal" naming scheme (like LDAP OIDs).  For this reason, I would 
> suggest that 'someproto:foo' would be better syntax for a use case 
> like this.

Gotcha.  That makes sense.

> The idea here is that a *name* (like "foo") is translated by a naming 
> service to a *reference* which designates a *factory* and one or more 
> *addresses*.  Addresses (URL schemes) are supposed to be reusable for 
> a variety of purposes.  So, even though there is a default factory 
> associated with URL schemes, you do not subclass the URL scheme just 
> to get a different factory.  Instead, just create a reference to bind 
> the desired factory to the appropriate addresses.  Then, so that code 
> doesn't need to know the details, just use the configuration system or 
> a name-based context to map from a symbolic name (like "foo") to the 
> reference.
>

Thanks for the tips.  I was able to refactor out 2 URL subclasses - I'm 
working on a Context now to provide the name resolution/expansion.

/arg