Re: [regrep] Re: Core Components Specifications

[David RR Webber - XMLGlobal <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Sandy Klausner
> 
David,
Your explanation points out the complexity of implementing constraint
behavior. The multiple implementation strategies along with the fact that
there is no formal way to assure integrity with a schema registry entry
begs
for an integrated approach to this issue.
Sandy
<<<<<<<<<

Sandy,

Technology complexity is not always the only option!

Notice that the CPA/CPP and TRP messaging envelope are key pieces.

You define the business agreement, select the artifacts, verify them, and
then use the message envelope to ensure authentication and runtime
integrity and version consistency.

If the registry was providing executable artifacts at runtime this would be
a HUGE issue.  However it is emphatically NOT doing this.

Also - a key mantra for CCR is - NO SURPRISES (i.e. dynamic runtime 
includes are verboten!)  All artifacts exchanged at runtime must be
pre-known.

I don't want to open up an extended conversation on this!!  If you have
specific issues - please refer them to the TRP or Registry teams.

Thanks, DW.