Re: Deleting channels...

Stephen Grau <steveg@na.novell.com> Mon, 09 December 1991 23:35 UTC

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1991 14:51:23 -0800
From: Stephen Grau <steveg@na.novell.com>
Message-Id: <9112092251.AA25941@na.novell.com>
To: garye@hpspdla.spd.hp.com, robini@spider.co.uk
Subject: Re: Deleting channels...
Cc: rmonmib@mti.com

> Robin Iddon writes:
> > 
> > IMHO it would be unfriendly to invalidate them - what if the application
> > deleted the channel merely to re-insert it with different event indices ?  It
> > wouldn't be too happy having to re-download all those tedious filters again.
> > 
Gary Ellis writes:
> 
> Although I may be making my bias as an agent writer painfully clear here,
> it is my impression that one reason for the "underCreation" state is so
> that a manager can make a change to a control table row without deleting
> it.  e.g.......
> 
> 	set the status object (from valid) to underCreation
> 	change the event index
> 	set the status object back to valid
> 
> If done this way, the need for child rows to remain when the parent is
> deleted is obviated, no?
> 
I like it!  It gives the manager a way to invalidate things without
deleting them.  How were you planning on dealing with references to
non-existent rows?  Are you also suggesting that invalidating a row
invalidates (deletes) everything that references that row?

Steve Grau
Network Management Products Division
Novell, Inc.
steveg@novell.com