Confusing attribute names for uuid/uid

[kitchoi]

In simphony-common, we have been using uid instead of uuid as the attribute name. But here in the metadata we have uuid as the attribute name. We should settle on using one of them.

https://github.com/simphony/simphony-common/issues/20 https://github.com/simphony/simphony-common/pull/61 https://github.com/simphony/simphony-common/pull/286 https://publicwiki-01.fraunhofer.de/SimPhoNy-Project/index.php/SimPhoNy_Metadata_Schema#Converting_a_general_metadata_element_to_a_class

[roigcarlo]

I agree.

As you point in simphony/simphony-common#20 we decided to use uid. I remember that the main reason for that was to unify the id of the Cuba objects (see also the discussion in simphony/simphony-common#19) since we were using different approaches. But no one really gave a strong reason to use id, uid or uuid.

In my opinion we should stick to uid just for convenience (maybe this way managing components inside the cuds container can even be simplified?). But if there is a reason to move it shouldn't be a problem.

[kitchoi]

I prefer uid too so that it doesn't clash with the module name uuid. That would require either renaming CUBA.UUID to CUBA.UID or have the generator take care of this naming and generate an attribute of uid. Changes in https://github.com/simphony/simphony-common/pull/286 will need some amendment too given uuid is used there. @ahashibon, @mehdisadeghi

[mehdisadeghi]

I think we can use uid in the code, since it has been decided in the past.

[kitchoi]

Fixed in #17, closing.