[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef
Monica, I do not see comparable issues here with Late Binding. The reason is that there is only one highly constrained use case and context - namely - user issued an update against an existing registry object using the LID aware method. Late Binding in BPSS has to cope with a minimum of 4 different use cases that we've identified for V2 - and then obviously more beyond that - where the context can be user defined. Therefore - my conclusion is that registry here is fine and does no need a seperate context management mechanism as in the BPSS case. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> To: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> Cc: "Nikola Stojanovic" <Nikola.Stojanovic@RosettaNet.org>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [regrep] PROPOSAL: More flexible ObjectRef > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > > Nikola Stojanovic wrote: > > > >> <Farrukh> > >> > >> > My proposal is to add a new logical id attribute to the set of > >> > registry versioning attributes, and otherwise improving ObjectRef to > >> > allow selection of a particular version of an object. > >> > >> +1 on being able to reference a logical object in a version independent > >> manner. > >> > >> This is exactly what the lid attribute is for in the versioning spec > >> being added to version 2.6. > >> > >> I think that the use case you raise can (and should) be addressed very > >> easily by extending the ObjectRef class to have a choice of: > >> > >> a) a static "hard-wired" reference to a specific version of a specific > >> object (current capability) > >> > >> b) a dynamic "late-binding" reference to a logical object which is > >> determined at run-time (de-refence time). > >> I could see this being done via a second attribute named "dynamic". When > >> dynamic is false (default) the registry > >> assumes that the id attribute references the referenced object. When > >> dynamic is true, the registry assumes that the id attribute MUST be to a > >> stored query that dynamically determines the referenced objects. > >> > >> This is a very powerful concept. Thanks Matt for seeding this idea. I > >> hope we can discuss this over email prior to next telecon. Thanks. > >> > >> </Farrukh> > >> > >> I also see this as a very valid and a needed Use Case and that > >> LateBinding approach is interesting. However, I think that we have a > >> solution that doesn't need LateBinding. It would be something like this: > >> > >> - subscribe to relevant event(s); in this case it is Update of the > >> objects that are members of the package. > >> > >> - implement "Web Service" that is going to be triggered by the above > >> event and that is going to adjust relevant object references. > >> > >> As one looks at the context of the two, LateBinding would incur > >> lookups whenever object references need to be resolved and > >> EventNotification will be invoked when relevant events happen. One > >> would assume that occurrence frequency of the first is higher then of > >> the second. > >> > > Interesting point that Matt's use case is already addressable via the > > Event Notification feature. So as I understand your suggestion the > > reference that needs to always be to the latest version of an object > > could be updated from one version of an object to another by a web > > service that is an Event Notification Listener service that gets > > invoked whenever a new version of the object is created. > > > > I agree with the point that your alternative is more efficient than > > late binding Object Reference approach and requires no additional work. > > > > I now reconsider the idea of doing late binding of object references > > now. Instead we should keep it in our future candidate work items and > > rely on your Event Notification based approach to address Matt's use > > case for now. > > > > Any one disagree with this proposed resolution? > > mm1: I don't disagree but wish to ask a question that applies to not > only late binding but the event notification approach where object > references are updated. In ebBP, we found that LateBinding is not a > black-white situation. For example, when we started to talk about > conditional attributes such as time to perform, we determined that > LateBinding could have a duration, may or may not be allowed, and > constraints could be applied (when changed, if changed where does the > value come from, etc). This raises questions: > > * Can you update the object references to the latest version? > * Are there conditions that apply? Are all objects in the package > updated? > * Does the owner define the duration, parameters or constraints of > when they can be changed? > > As well, in our work on time to perform, we found the conditional > aspects to be best expressed as an element not an attribute. Thanks. > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]