Re: thoughts on updates for obj with guarded attribute
- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 13:43:48 +0100
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost writes
* > "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" woeber@localhost writes:
* > DB-folks,
* > I just submitted an object -containing a bdrygw-l: attribute- in orde
* r t
* > o
* > change the connect: attribute. To avoid getting cute warnings I just
* > _omitted_ the bdrygw-l: line altogether. Nevertheless, the warning wa
* > generated (see below).
* > From my point of view, it would be more natural to not send diagnosti
* > if
* > a guarded attribute does match exactly or is omitted altogether.
* > Warning(s) should be generted only if there is a mismatch.
* You are perfectly right. This is how it should work.
* Goes on the to-be-fixed list.
To get back on this one once more, I think an omission IS a mismatch, and
that is why a warning is generated right now. If you would have left the
bdrygw-l in (an it would be the same) you would get no warning.