Re: [regrep] Object Relocation Vs. Object Export Facility

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Farrukh,

I say go ahead and do it.  We are looking at doing this is a 
proprietary fashion in our product, but a standard way would be better. 
  We'd also like to see the ability to export by classification node.

Regards,

Matt
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 06:57  AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:

> Team,
>
> I had received the following suggestion from John Silva of Philips.
>
> John suggested that it may be more useful to have a  more reusable 
> lower level primitive capability to "Export" registry content based on 
> specified criteria (e.g. export whole registry, export objects owned 
> by a user). The corresponding ability to import the content may be 
> fulfilled by the existing SubmitObjectRequest.
>
> The proposal form John further states that we should replace the 
> currently planned Object Relocation protocol with the simpler and more 
> reusable Object Export capability.
>
> I am very supportive of this proposal despite the fact that it 
> involves some rework. The Object Relocation protocol is very complex 
> and involves registry-registry communication as well as distributed 
> transactions over multiple registries. John's suggested replacement of 
> Object Relocation with Object Export greatly simplifies the 
> specification and implementations while still supporting the intended 
> use cases.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on this proposed change. If there 
> is no dissent then I would like to rework this area of the spec. If 
> there is some dissent then I requests that this issue be put to vote.
>
> John, please chime in if I mis-communicated any of your suggestion. 
> Thanks for this valuable suggestion.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>