Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410

["Goran Zugic" <gzugic@ebxmlsoft.com>]

I think that we should not allow a RegistryObject to be deleted if it has
references to it. Having RegistryObjects that reference other
RegistryObjects that do not exist change basic referential integrity
principal.

Matt's idea about routine business evolution cases makes sense to me and I
agree that a Registry Administrator only could remove a referenced
RegistryObject.  The RegistryAdministrator should be allowed to do this
operation only if an object replacement is provided so that the  referential
integrity principal is still in place. I hope that a reference to new object
could be added as the RemoveObjectsRequest attribute.

Regards,
Goran

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410


> Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>
>> Sorry, that is unclear.
>>
>> Currently, if a  removal is attempted against an object that has live
>> references, the removal is aborted -- a very safe approach to be sure.
>> My thought was that we could possibly make this more intelligent and at
>> the same time allow the registry to deal with routine business
>> evolution -- users leaving the company, data models being refactored,
>> etc.
>>
>> So, my thinking was to allow a registry administrator to delete an object
>> and at the time of removal specify that all  references to the object
>> being deleted be targetted/based at/on a new object.  The new object
>> could be an equivalent object, or even a link to an auditable event which
>> would allow browsers to at least see that a reference was forcibly
>> removed.
>
> I understand what you had in mind now as follows:
>
> -Allow an object to be deleted even when it has refrences to it
>
> -Somehow update references to deleted object to point to its replacement
> if any or to the AuditableEvent that marks its deletion if it has no
> replacement.
>
> Updating all references would be too costly IMO. The other issue is how to
> specify replacement object when deleting an object.
>
> I think it would be cleaner to simply by default allow an object to be
> deleted even if it has refrences to it and if define how dangling
> references should be handles by registry and clients. For example we could
> say that registry MUST return objects matching a query even if they have
> dangling references and that it should return UnresolvedReferenceException
> if client attempts to fetch the object by its reference using a query. As
> for clients we could say that they should be prepared to handle
> UnresolvedReferenceException when fetching an object by its reference.
>
> I could support above modification to Matt's original suggestion or
> something along those lines. What do other folks think?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Please clarify clearly what you intended to convey in this comment.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Line 1410: "I would prefer if we could allow an overide that says "point
>>> references to this object, such as an auditable event that chronicles
>>> the deletion"."
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
> 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.
>
>