Re: CAP 10: 7.2. LOCAL Parameter

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Doug claimed on 01/30/2003 12:43:25 PM:
> > At one point in the text it is referred to as "the "LOCAL"
property" but 
> > not in all cases.  Any reason we cannot make LOCAL a new
VALARM property 
> > instead of just a property parameter?
> 
> This was discussed months ago.

Many months ago it was mentioned but
no actual real WG discussion that I can find.  My FT index reveals
that it was covered by you in reply to Steve waaaay back on 03/25/2002
09:53:18 AM MST under the subject "Re: CAP draft 07 issues - sections
3 and 4" where you wrote:

There was (and i ~think~ generally accepted) debate
about how to
tag VALARMs as LOCAL and non-LOCAL, which included adding SEQUENCE
to VALARMS in order to make them unique. I'll look for the post and
forward it to you. 

but of the referenced posting I can
find no copy in my FT archives nor was there any related followup to the
list.  

Ugh, I really have to revise my opinion
of the new IBM FT engine downwards; it seems that because I was using uppercase
for the entire phrase ALARM it only matched that phrase exactly in any
case and thus failed to find VALARM! %^|  

I find a wandering discussion under
the subject "Modifying VALARM"  back in mid January 2002
and another related one under the subject "(#1) synchronization part
2, and identifying a components VALARM" where Mark Paterson proposed
the use of LOCAL as a parameter (based on your text from Dec 2001 where
you suggested a scoping parameter on SEQUENCE originally)  Doug and
Mark discussed the scoping of ENABLE but no real WG discussion as to the
proper form for the value on the VALARM.

In any case really think that since
LOCAL is describing the VALARM as being 'locally created and owned' that
it definitely does NOT belong as a property parameter on SEQUENCE; it should
be its own property in VALARMs.  Im NOT against adding it, just adding
it in the incorrect form.  Perhaps if I could find some text that
described how the attribute of the VALARM belongs as a property to a parameter
rather than being a property itself I would let it slide but I see the
current design as inconsistant the roles of properties vs property parameters.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...