Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410

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

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> Sorry, that is unclear.
>
> Currently, if a  removal is attempted against an object that has live 
> references, the removal is aborted -- a very safe approach to be 
> sure.  My thought was that we could possibly make this more 
> intelligent and at the same time allow the registry to deal with 
> routine business evolution -- users leaving the company, data models 
> being refactored, etc.
>
> So, my thinking was to allow a registry administrator to delete an 
> object and at the time of removal specify that all  references to the 
> object being deleted be targetted/based at/on a new object.  The new 
> object could be an equivalent object, or even a link to an auditable 
> event which would allow browsers to at least see that a reference was 
> forcibly removed.

I understand what you had in mind now as follows:

-Allow an object to be deleted even when it has refrences to it

-Somehow update references to deleted object to point to its replacement 
if any or to the AuditableEvent that marks its deletion if it has no 
replacement.

Updating all references would be too costly IMO. The other issue is how 
to specify replacement object when deleting an object.

I think it would be cleaner to simply by default allow an object to be 
deleted even if it has refrences to it and if define how dangling 
references should be handles by registry and clients. For example we 
could say that registry MUST return objects matching a query even if 
they have dangling references and that it should return 
UnresolvedReferenceException if client attempts to fetch the object by 
its reference using a query. As for clients we could say that they 
should be prepared to handle UnresolvedReferenceException when fetching 
an object by its reference.

I could support above modification to Matt's original suggestion or 
something along those lines. What do other folks think?

>
> Thanks,
> Matt
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Please clarify clearly what you intended to convey in this comment. 
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Line 1410: "I would prefer if we could allow an overide that says 
>> "point references to this object, such as an auditable event that 
>> chronicles the deletion"."
>>
>


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh