Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Automatic notification to the owners of the references?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think there should be no automatic notifications in the system
>> because notifications are expensive and should be tightly controlled.
>
>
> I guess in practice, if a registry object is *really* important to a
> user, they should subscrtibe to its' auditable events. That way, if
> they assert a reference or association, they do have a mechanism to be
> notified and do something.
Precisely! And only the user knows which objects are of importance to
them. So let then subscribe explicitly using our event notification feature.
>
> Duane
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Duane
>>>
>>> Goran Zugic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that we should not allow a RegistryObject to be deleted if
>>>> it has
>>>> references to it. Having RegistryObjects that reference other
>>>> RegistryObjects that do not exist change basic referential integrity
>>>> principal.
>>>>
>>>> Matt's idea about routine business evolution cases makes sense to
>>>> me and I
>>>> agree that a Registry Administrator only could remove a referenced
>>>> RegistryObject. The RegistryAdministrator should be allowed to do
>>>> this
>>>> operation only if an object replacement is provided so that the
>>>> referential
>>>> integrity principal is still in place. I hope that a reference to
>>>> new object
>>>> could be added as the RemoveObjectsRequest attribute.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Goran
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Farrukh Najmi"
>>>> <>
>>>> To: <>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 5:46 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on
>>>> line 1410
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>>>>> roster of
>>>>> the OASIS TC), go to
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>>>> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Regards,
Farrukh
