Dependency and RDBMS QueryTemplate

[Cantor, Scott]

>> If not, then if I want to guarantee a value is available to the query, does one need to add that to the activation
>> condition?

That's an interesting idea actually, I suppose you could. Normally the answer is that you fail the original dependency, backstop it with something, or use conditional logic in the query template.

> I'm not sure what your question is but the activation conditions are tested _after_ the dependencies have been run but
> _before_ the resolver is run (or not).  I'm not sure whether it is a guaranteed (documented) semantic, but it strikes me
> that it the the opposite would be  meaningless.

Well, to be honest, I raised that (can't recall if I filed a bug) as a possible "error" because it wasn't what I expected. I did not think dependencies of something I turned off would be run. So it definitely hasn't been what I would call a documented semantic, but if we think it's useful behavior then I guess I would rethink that.

The downside is that it means if you have a whole tree of stuff you want to do conditionally you have to keep repeating the condition (and it has to run multiple times). Whereas I thought if I disabled an AttributeDefinition, it would simply skip all the dependencies if they were only used for that definition.

Personally, I guess I found that more intuitive and ultimately useful, but I can see it being useful to base the condition on something the dependency does too, so perhaps that's best. I can still do what I want, it just costs a bit. I don't like the idea of complicating the configuration with more syntax to control ordering.

-- Scott