Re: [regrep-cooperating] Cooperating registries version 0.4

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Hi Matt,

The following statement in Cooperating registries version 0.4:

"Data caching will be described later in more detail once the event
notification proposal is flushed out. This is because it is likely to depend
upon the event notification feature. "

is at line 256 which is the very beginning of "5.4 Object Caching Via
Replication".

I propose we leave the section 5.4 in the proposal as it acts as a place
holder and a place to keep though-lets on the subject. Give that the
audience is small I think we can overcome the confusion it might cause.
However, if you feel strongly on this point I can take it out.

--
Regards,
Farrukh


Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 09:29  AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> >
> > Recall that the current proposal has deferred object replication until
> > after
> > Event Notification is somewhat defined.
>
> I do recall that, however, that fact is not reflected in the proposal.
> Maybe replication should be removed for now, or the deferral explained
> in the text.
>
> In this case, I think we need to address this even if replication is not
> addressed, as local caching of objects contained in a remote registry is
> an important feature because it allows implementors to provide more
> scalable solutions.
>
> -Matt
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>