7C3EF93EEBC6EB4A8B4470853DE86566DA556F@dewdfe18.wdf.sap.corp"
type="cite">
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
Hi Ron,
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">
Hi Everyone,
As promised, here is some wording
towards the resolution of issue 160. I'm using the document Bryan sent
out as a resolution for 139 as the basis.
Section 4.3 is heavilly modified,
and partially combined with section 6.4. Also chapter 11 has been
extended.
Please review.
Best Regards,
Ron
<<change
summary_.doc>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php