On 12 March 2010 15:43, Balázs Kósi <rebmekop at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to ask:
> Should we store the actual items that have changed or some sort of
> description like MCDefinition or DSChange?.
>
>> This should be fixed by passing a description of some sort (similar to MCClassDefinition) or specifically the values that were changed.
>
> The next question is: could we reuse one of these?
> I think, actually DSChange [1] models exactly what we want.
> So what about announcing DSChange (and DSDoIt) objects,
> and providing a compatibility protocol with AbstractEvent.
> If this would work out, it would simplify SystemChangeAnnouncer
> implementation greatly, and pave the way for DeltaStream adoption.
> What do you think?
>
plusone.
I think that if you could change it to make it simplier and
DS-compatible, then do it :)

> Balázs
>
> [1] You can take a look what DSChanges are by evaluating:
>
> Installer ss
>        project: 'DeltaStreams';
>        package: 'DeltaStreams-Model';
>        browse
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.