[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Template dependancies
|
Thanks Peter/Rob,
I think I was just taken by surprise yesterday when things
started to go wrong but without knowing why.
Separating the templates out from the capabilities (if this
a correct interpretation of your note below) may make things easier to handle,
but will that enable us to see the dependancies any
clearer?
I wonder also if this might also have an impact on the
previous issue about replacing certain capabilities (e.g. representing_x /
referencing_x) with assigning_x?
My immediate response to this is that it could be a good
idea to have the templates separate may allow the descriptive information
supporting the concepts in the capabilities which the template may either point
to or pull selected text/definitions from on the fly. That way you only need
make a change in one place - not many.. But contract is not likely to be an
isolated case - we will need to agree on which other capabilities should be
'migrated' like this. I also wonder if this might solve my issue about the
referential integrity - or just move it to the templates..? However I feel
I have strayed off-topic here now.
The variance work is to represent concessions. These are a
specific type of approval, hence they re-use the approvals templates.
Assigning_approvals was using assigning_approval_person inside i'ts own
definition, which is then re-using all of approvals. Hence by proxy concessions
get affected. Justifications and conditions seem unaffected.
Obviously the updates are addressing some of the
issues logged - so it's hard to complain, however, approvals are applied to
so many things. If the result will be the same, but more flexible approach,
then that may not present a problem, but if the result means applying
separate organizations and persons to approvals (like we do with status), then I
will need to make changes. If I can get a view of how the structure of approvals
will end up then I'll be in a better position to work out the modifications
needed.
regards as always,
Tim
NB - the main capabilities where I'm generating templates
is in;
Variance (will cover concessions/justifications/conditions
- the latter two can be moved to relevant capabilities when editors
permit),
Scheme,
Location,
Life_cycle_opportunity (will be using location, approval,
activity date/time) From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 20 April 2006 03:52 To: peter.bergstrom@eurostep.com; 'Tim Turner'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Template dependancies Apologies Tim - this is our fault. We should have sent out an email requesting the change.
BTW - I was not sure why this affected the variance template. I could not understand why anyone would need to use "assigning_approval_person". Then I saw that you have in affect redrawn the "assigning_approval" template. I was wondering why you didn't just use it in toto?
BTW - I am working on enabling the templates to be in separate files, so that they can be individually managed Regards -------------------------------------------
-----Original
Message-----
Sorry Tim,
I'm responsible for the assigning_approval_person problem you have. I'm currently editing the capability assigning_approval, and in doing so I thought that the name was incorrect (approving person is more accurate than approval-person), and changed it... Without thinking about consequences.
I still think I made a change to the better, but if consequences are too big and its not worth it, then I will change back.
Regardless of this specific case, I think you are right in the need for visibility in DEXlib, because since templates are quite new, I think we will bump into this type of issues several times more, until the templates have settled down a bit. We are still learning all this... Peter Bergström
From: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Hi, I completed several templates for (Variance v1.20) which call others (& therefore, rely upon them) whose mapping paths were successfully parsed last week - but now have errors in them. This is because of changes in underlying templates from other (well meaning) editors which have either removed certain parameters or removed whole templates altogether - which were expected by those re-using them. While fixes are a normal part of CM life, the impacts can be extensive if a template has many dependants. It would be nice to somehow know when dependancies change, and perhaps to know what templates will be affected when making changes: can Dexlib provide such a view for developers/editors? I will need to redesign my templates if assigning_approval_person is to stay deleted - so some feedback on the status of this template would be useful. Perhaps we should agree to "announce" such removals. Regards, NB - On a related issue: I think there are similar issues when reference data are removed; the capabilities which were developed using them now have significant 'holes'. *************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]