----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:28
PM
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS interface
questions
is
there a bug for this? I've been trying to be better at prioritizing and
working out of bugzilla
>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 06/26/08 10:36 AM
>>>
Let me
repeat what I think you are asking for so I know I'm on the same
page: Today an attribute selection list is limited to specifying
which attributes to return. This is a good start, but even this is
not enough to cause a "minimal" amount of data to be returned (in the case
where a CP talks over a connection to its backing data).
The
proposal is to allow more fine-grained control over the attributes to be
returned. Specifically, we want the selection list to be able to
point at sub-elements within complex attributes.
Your
proposed interface looks to me like it should work for that purpose.
Should
we retain the existing semantics? Currently we say that the
selection list is essentially a statement made by the caller which expresses
the attributes (and now specific parts of attributes) he intends to
read. But, if he happens to try to read other attributes those
reads should succeed (but performance may be slower due to him not declaring
his intent to read them). So, should we keep these
semantics? I think we should, but it *may* place a small extra
burden on the CP writer (depends on the nature of the CP).
Jim
>>> "Yuriy
Pilipenko" <ypilipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 06/26/08 7:15 AM
>>>
Hi Jim.
Just a reminder. Would You please consider making
such a change to IdAS
iterfaces together with others doing recently. I
guess this also can help in
ussue spoken out by Deniel yesterday about XDI
CP - knowing what exactly
entity attributes it should request at a
time.
Thanks, Yuriy.
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
<higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:32
PM
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS interface questions
Ok, I
need to look more closely at this. I'll be on vacation
until
Friday May 30
>>> "Yuriy Pilipenko"
<ypilipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 05/24/08 11:39 AM >>>
Not
exactly. Actually we want to call getEntity() once per unit of work
but
have provider loaded only needed attribute values of Entity itself
as well
as only needed attribute values of included complex values, not
more. Yes,
in this case CP don't need to do unnesessary protocol
roundtrips inside
(#2).
We propose to change method signature to getEntities(IFilter
filter,
IAttributeSelection attrSelection) and getEntity() respectively,
where
IAttributeSelection with companion interfaces would be something
like
the set of Filter interfaces. Instance of it can hold the tree
structure
of only needed attributes and complex value's attributes
according to
actual model of Entity and owl schema. It would be something
very simple
like this:
interface
IAttributeSelection {
addAttribute(URI
attrType);
addComplexAttribute(URI attrType,
IAttributeSelection selection);
}
Thanks and
regards.
Yuriy.
