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?
>
