[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: AW: [sdo] change summary.doc
Hi Blaise,
What behaviour would you like to see? Do you
want to restrict orphanHolders to root elements, or do you want the change
rendered as a move rather than a delete, or some other
alternative?
Ron
Von: Blaise Doughan [mailto:blaise.doughan@oracle.com] Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juni 2009 16:28 An: Barack, Ron Cc: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: Re: AW: [sdo] change summary.doc "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 reason it seems "more incorrect" is that in the containment case (see below) if B had a ChangeSummary and a containment relationship was formed between A & C then B would lose its reference to C. A --containment--> B --containment--> C In the example I gave before (see below), B will still reference C (as strongly as it did before), but the ChangeSummary will tell me something changed (when nothing really did). A --containment--> B --non-containment--> C -Blaise Barack, Ron wrote: 7C3EF93EEBC6EB4A8B4470853DE86566DA556F@dewdfe18.wdf.sap.corp type="cite"> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]