[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[Jason Zurawski]

Personal vote: doesn't need to be in the protocol if we can't think of a 
good use beyond the backend of a service.

I have stuck this on the agenda for Thursday where we can last-call it 
for good.

Thanks;

-jason

On 5/5/10 2:02 AM, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
> Right, and that is not in the protocol. Does anyone have an issue with
> not allowing merge-chaining in protocol messages?
>
> thanks,
> jeff
>
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:30 AM, romradz at man.poznan.pl wrote:
>
>>
>> So I see that the only usage for merge chaining is store metadata
>> file (for example store metada file of MA)
>>
>> Roman
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC
>>>> but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM
>>>> structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should
>>> specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG
>>> schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
>>>
>>> jeff
>>>
>>>> Roman
>>>> // Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland
>>>> // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
>>>>> To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge
>>>>> chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff
>>>>> meant when he talked
>>>>> about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not
>>>>> sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly
>>>>> in favor of its
>>>>> removal.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Aaron
>>>>> On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and
>>>>> examples) on
>>>>>     NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be
>>>>> waiting there
>>>>>     for your opinions I asked ealier.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Roman
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           All;
>>>>>
>>>>>           On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge
>>>>> chaining examples
>>>>>
>>>>>           do not need to be in the NMC document.  They will
>>>>> continue to be
>>>>>
>>>>>           described in NM however.  If anyone disagrees, speak up
>>>>> now.
>>>>>
>>>>>           Thanks;
>>>>>
>>>>>           -jason
>>>>>
>>>>>           On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Hi Roman;
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I agree.  I will add this to the agenda for
>>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 -jason
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                       Hi Jason&   all,
>>>>>
>>>>>                       I'm reading merge chaining examples in the
>>>>> base doc and I'm not sure
>>>>>
>>>>>                       that keeping partial metadata elements,
>>>>> which in my opinion are useless
>>>>>
>>>>>                       after chaining oparation, is a good
>>>>> approach. I don't believe that they
>>>>>
>>>>>                       might be used for any further processing.
>>>>> Keeping them in the examples
>>>>>
>>>>>                       presenting merged structures may be
>>>>> confusing for a reader. I would
>>>>>
>>>>>                       remove them. What do you think (see examples
>>>>> in the attachements)?
>>>>>
>>>>>                       Roman