RE: Methods in the NIM requirements

["Andrea Westerinen" <andreawest@mindspring.com>]

<snip>

> > <Andrea> I do not understand the argument of having ONLY attributes in a
> > class definition and then hoping that some behavior happens.  Is the
goal to
> > define an "object's" attributes and a "do something" bit?   IE, when I
set
> > the attributes and then hit "go", the right stuff happens? This seems a
> > formula for disaster and proprietary/unpredictable behavior.
> >
> Andrea,
> You raise an interesting point:
> Should the semantics of "go" be in the model? If we look at many of the
> models out there today, all have "go" semantics. However, most are in the
> protocol itself. The SET command is part of SNMP, not the MIB.
> Similarly for COPS and LDAP.
>
> regards,
> -Walter

Let me be clear.  Putting a "go" attribute in the model would be wrong from
an object modeling and a formal "declaration" perspective.  I would like to
see specific behavior specifically modeled as methods.  I would prefer that
get/set (read/write) be handled in the protocol(s) with only the
characteristics (constraints) of whether read/write are  "supported" in the
model.

Andrea