[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410
Duane Nickull wrote: > > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> Automatic notification to the owners of the references? >> >> >> >> I think there should be no automatic notifications in the system >> because notifications are expensive and should be tightly controlled. > > > I guess in practice, if a registry object is *really* important to a > user, they should subscrtibe to its' auditable events. That way, if > they assert a reference or association, they do have a mechanism to be > notified and do something. Precisely! And only the user knows which objects are of importance to them. So let then subscribe explicitly using our event notification feature. > > Duane > > >> >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> Goran Zugic wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]