Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association

[Max Voskob <mvoskob@msi.com.au>]

Hi everybody ;)

Are you into a hot argument with Joel again?

Having some experience with implementation of your specs I can say that it
won't be a trouble for a strong team with a fair budget to implement
existing visible/invisible mode, however, making it visible won't harm at
all and it's obvious whether the association was confirmed or not. Well, it
can save a few $$$ on the development effort anyway.

On the other hand, I would suggest to let every party set up maximum pending
time. If there is no response from one of the parties within that period the
request for the extramural association is being deleted. It will be very
easy to implement and the registry won't be littered with outdated pending
requests. Zero value of the max. pending time can mean that it's unlimited.
A minimal value (1 unit?) can mean that the organization is not interested
in any extramural associations and any request will be deleted with the next
scheduled job in the DB.

Does it all make sense? ;)

Cheers,
Max


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <matt@xmlglobal.com>
To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association


> Joel,
>
> One thing to consider is that Farrukh's proposal suggests that
> yet-to-be-approved associations be visible, but there is still a means
> to determine whether both organizations have accepted the association.
>
> The specification could merely specify that associations that are not
> yet approved must be represented as such in any user interface.  I'm
> not sure if this suggestion is kludgy or not, but I think it would be
> sufficient.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10:55  AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Munter, Joel D wrote:
> >
> >> I would not
> >> want someone to stake a claim to having some association to my
> >> company and
> >> force me to do something about it to keep that invisible.
> >
> > Just to clarify...
> >
> > Under the proposed change all Associations will always be visible to
> > everyone (barring a custom Access Control Policy). Any viewer will be
> > able to access for themselves whether t he Association is confirmed
> > and by which parties. Specifically, there will be no ability under the
> > proposal for Party A to "do something" that would "keep that
> > (Association) invisible".
> >
> > The proposal essentially says: "Label the product and let the buyer be
> > aware". To use an analogy the V2 way would mean that cigarrete stores
> > would have to hide cigarretes from the eyes pregnant women and teh
> > proposed change would mean that they can display it in full sight of
> > teh pregnant women as long as there is a label that says that pregnant
> > women are at risk for using that product.
> >
> > Hope the anology makes things clearer.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>