[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Issues with extramural Association
Max, Your suggestion makes sense to me. -Matt On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Max Voskob wrote: > 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 easy to implement and the registry won't be littered with outdated 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> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC