Re[2]: [higgins-dev] IdAS update proposals

[Valery Kokhan <vkokhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Right now I'd prefer option 3 because I'm a little bit confused with
the option 3.a. However I have to notice that if we introduce
transactional support like IContext.commit() we should also provide a
way like IContext.rollback() to restore local context state if
transaction fails for some reason.

With regards to option 3a I have two point of confusion.
My first point of confusion is proposed semantic of add*
methods. The description of IDigitalSubject.addAttribute method says
that when null is passed as attr parameter, "the digital subject
returns an empty IAttribute (one with no values)". My question is which
type of attribute will be returned if digital subject could contains
two types?

My second point of confusion with option 3a is proposed
TransactionSemantics parameter. My question is what will happens when
first we call few methods with the semantic parameter set to
"OnCommit" and then we call another method with the semantic parameter
set to "Immediate"?

What I like in option 3a is the proposal to make deep copy of the
parameters (attributes, values) in add*/set* methods in order to avoid
problems described in option 2.

I'm thinking about option 3x where we rather refactor then remove
build methods.

With regards to use cases I think we need to split use case 1 (add new
subject). One is when the type of digital subject is know (i.e. we
know what types of attributes could be added to the subject) and another
when the type of digital subject is unknown.

Valery

Saturday, April 14, 2007, 2:51:10 AM, you wrote:

>  
>  
> I've added more text to Option 3.a.  Where do y'all want me to go
> from here?  I can start fleshing out the use cases (please tell me
> which ones are of interest to you, and/or add your own).  Or I could
> start mocking up the APIs and generate javadoc.
>  
>  
>  
> I'd like to get this moving since I'll be gone next Wed-Fri
>  
>  
>  
> Jim

>>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 4/12/07 4:45 PM >>>
>  
> It's definitely not too early to comment on Option 3.a now.  The
> intent should be clear, I could use some help in exploring what kinds of problems might arise.
>  
>  
>  
> jim

>>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 4/12/07 2:53 PM >>>
>  
> So far, I prefer Option 3.a (I should call it the Daniel options
> since he planted that particular seed)
>  
>  
>  
> I'll flesh out the APIs a bit on the wiki

>