[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Remove RegistryEntry class
Farrukh, Agreed. RegistryEntry was a good idea in uncertain times though. Lets all observe a moment of silence for RegistryEntry.........................OK, done. :-) Happy New Year everyone. -Matt Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > As I work my way through regrep-rim-3.0-draft-01 document I see > another area where we > have unnecessary complexity that is hard for us to describe to our > intended reader. > > I am talking about the RegistryEntry class. Much functionality from > this class has bubbled up to RegistryObject class over the years. > All this class provides at this point is the expiration and stability > attributes: > > <complexType name="RegistryEntryType"> > <complexContent> > <extension base="tns:RegistryObjectType"> > <attribute name="expiration" type="dateTime" use="optional"/> > <attribute name="stability" type="tns:referenceURI" > use="optional"/> > </extension> > </complexContent> > </complexType> > <element name = "RegistryEntry" type = "tns:RegistryEntryType" > substitutionGroup="tns:Identifiable" /> > > There is little rhyme or reason that we can provide for why some > classes are derived from RegistryEntry and why others are derived > from RegistryObject. I propose we simplify the model and remove the > RegistryEntry class all together. We can still define expiration and > stability attributes > as canonical Slots on the RegistryObject class so that any object can > have stability and/or expiration defined in a standard way if needed. > > BTW for what its worth these attributes have not been used much in my > experience with various deoployments of freebXML Registry. > > I have long felt that the RegistryEntry class is unnecessary and > should be removed. Does anyone have any objections to removing this > additional layer in our model? >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]