[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-comresolve] Re: [regrep-comment] ServiceBinding andSpecificationLink asLeafRegistryObject element?
Thanks for your comments Joel. I will use "may" instead of "will" as you suggest. Thanks. BTW since the cost of meeting this RFE is simply adding a parent attribute to a few elements, I strongly urge teh team to do this for V3 as it is a low lying fruit. It is so small that it does not even merit being noted as a work item. "Munter, Joel D" wrote: > What you suggest is fine; however, I offer the following constructve > criticism. > > With respect to V3 efforts, as the work has not been fully scoped nor even > drafted, it is difficult to predict what exactly will be in the V3 spec's. > I would like you to consider changing the "will" to a "may" in "...In V3 we > will include..." Or you may wish some other form of softer language or > phrasing. > > Joel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:42 AM > To: 'Oasis RR Comment Resolution' > Subject: [regrep-comresolve] Re: [regrep-comment] ServiceBinding and > SpecificationLink asLeafRegistryObject element? > > Team, > > Below is suggested reply to this comment: > > --------------------- > > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for your comments on the OASIS ebXML Registry V2 specifications. > > The long term direction of the specifications is that any leaf > RegistryObject should be able to be submitted > by itself even if it is a composed object within a parent object. In such > cases the composed > object must reference an existing parent object in the registry. > > The ability to submit/update a composed object without its parent object is > a future feature. In V3 > we will include the optional ability to specify a parent attribute in all > composed > RegistryObject classes. This will allow a composed object to be submitted > without the accompanying > parent object. > > Until then, as you point out, it is semantically meaningless to submit a > composed object (e.g. ServiceBInding) > without its parent (e.g. Service). V2 implementations should detect and > report such cases as an Error condition. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > Paul Teasdale wrote: > > > Can I assume that the specs are in error when specifying ServiceBinding > and SpecificationLink as being Leaf objects? Hence, they can only be > submitted/updated as child elements of Service and ServiceBinding > respectively? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Paul > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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> -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC