Re: thoughts on updates for obj with guarded attribute

• To: Daniel Karrenberg < >
• From: Marten Terpstra < >
• Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 13:43:48 +0100
• Cc: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >

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
 * s
 *   >    generated (see below).
 *   > 
 *   >    From my point of view, it would be more natural to not send diagnosti
 * cs 
 *   > 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.
 * 
 * Daniel

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.

-Marten

• Post To The List:

• References:
  • Re: thoughts on updates for obj with guarded attribute
    • From: Daniel Karrenberg