Places:BookmarksComments: Difference between revisions

* Singleton model: At a minimum, we should use sqlite auto-inc PK IDs for bookmark identification internally in order to disambiguate the basic issues of the same URI being bookmarked in different locations in the bookmarks hierarchy. Using the bookmarked URI as a singleton leads us down a road of endless "special-cases" as discussed previously.

* Global Uniqueness: However, the issue of identity expands beyond the repercussions of the singleton model. Auto-incrementing IDs are not globally unique, and cannot be used for identification outside of the local bookmark set. We should use GUIDs for identification, which will provide local and global disambiguation of bookmarks.

* Places URIs: Places URIs should be used as identifiers for external use, and internally, when using annotations as an extensibility mechanism. The existing Places code does this when annotating livemarks, folders and queries. We should add APIs to generate URIs for bookmarks and separators, and update folder URIs to use a GUID instead of the auto-incrementing ID. The mutability of Places URIs means they're fragile, high-maintenance and not persistent, which is a requirement for global use. How should we construct the URI? place:{GUID}? Should we include type, eg: bookmark, folder, livemark, tag? place:{type}:{GUID}?