[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: [sdo] change summary.doc
Hi Blaise,
I think your understanding of the proposal is
correct.
I agree that it might seem odd that an object that is moved
outside the scope of the change summary is rendered as a delete, but I don't
think it's any odder for the proppsed definition of scope (ie,
including orphanHolders) than for the 2.1 definition of scope. In other
words, if C was previously contained by B, and then moved to A, then it would
also be rendered in the CS as a delete. Does the behavior seem more
incorrect for orphanHolders than it does for containment? In both cases,
we have the same simple rule: anything that was in scope before, but is no
longer is scope is rendered as a delete.
The trouble with restricting orphanHolders to root
elements is that, effectively, it makes that scope of the change summary the
entire graph, and I think, since CS has performance and memory costs, it would
be better to be able to express the boundries, ie, that scope is not the entire
graph.
I believe DataDirect has mentioned in the past the idea of
using DataObject.delete() to determine which orphans should be rendered as being
deleted, and which should be rendered as simply no longer being
referenced. A similar API could be used for distinguishing orphans that
should be rendered as created. The idea has some appeal, since removing a
non-containment reference maybe should have different semantics that removing a
containment reference (indeed, this is the case with 2.1). I'll leave it
to them to provide details.
I guess we have something (besides headers) to discuss at
tomorrows meeting ;-).
Ron
Von: Blaise Doughan [mailto:blaise.doughan@oracle.com] Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juni 2009 15:32 An: Barack, Ron Cc: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: Re: [sdo] change summary.doc Still working though your ChangeSummary document. I have a question about the following use case: A --containment--> B --non-containment--> C From your document: If B has both a ChangeSummary and orphan property then C is in the scope of B's ChangeSummary. Question: If a containment relationship forms between A & C then what is the impact on the ChangeSummary? Since C is no longer an orphan (A is its parent) and C is not reachable through B's containment tree it is no longer in the ChangeSummary's scope, but it seems incorrect to treat C as being removed. Impact: Are orphan properties restricted to root objects? At least when ChangeSummary is involved? -Blaise Barack, Ron wrote: 7C3EF93EEBC6EB4A8B4470853DE86566D1045D@dewdfe18.wdf.sap.corp type="cite"> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]