Subject: Re: CAP 10: 7.2. LOCAL Parameter

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 17:26:06 -0500

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: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...