[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Update to CR-034 (Creating self-referencing tModels)
I do appreciate the issues wrt
th is in the face of 2-pass architectures, that said, a change in favour of
rejecting self-referencing imposes additional validation requirements on
single-pass implementations which otherwise do not have to perform this.
The out suggested is that we
make this a "MAY" and registry policy (an absolute requirement in a registry
replicating data between its nodes). I'm really not too keen making this
a registry policy and would prefer making this normative behaviour. If we
accept this, then we have a choice of picking between the needs of single-pass
vs 2-pass architectures.
Let's discuss
tomorrow. From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 21:54 To: Luc Clement; Von Riegen, Claus; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Update to CR-034 (Creating self-referencing tModels) I
believe we are all agreed about 2 and 3. The rub comes in 1, because it causes
problems with 2-pass architectures vs 1-pass architectures.
A
2-pass architecture validates the entire content of the save operation, then
executes it. That fits well with the requirement that the entire save fails if
any element of it fails. Indeed, I thought this was the intended implementation
while I was reading the standard initially.
A
1-pass architecture validates one item, then saves it, then proceeds to the next
one, rolling the entire transaction back if there's a problem. That's all very
well for those using a transaction-based storage system, but that's not
a prerequisite that we should be placing on the
implementor.
My strong preference is to forbid all internal references
within a single save_ call - we have witnessed all manner of
strange and horrible behaviours that must be specified if one permits references
within the call. Things like: "what if someone saves a service under a different
business after saving it under a first business, all in the one save_business
call?".
Is
there a real use case for allowing resaving within a single call? It seems to me
that the only reason it's allowed is so we have a whole pile of problems to
solve :-(
Tony
Rogers
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]