Steve Rowe wrote:I've split this off this
thread.
kielmc said
This is where having the ability to use dynamic subsets on the left side would be extremely beneficial. Look for it in a future release : )
It sounds horrible to me and potentially very "expensive" as I would think that it would require some form of recompile of the rules and feeders if the left hand side of the rule is refers to a changing area too. It also makes me uncomfortable since you are using an object (a subset) which is intended (IMO!) for use to control the order and display of elements, not as a fundamental part of the rule structure.
I'm not sure if kielmc meant this comment in jest or if it's on the roadmap somewhere, I was just wondering if it's something that people think would be useful.
No, I agree with you. Bad idea, bad,
bad idea.
One may argue that subsets are part of the metadata, but to my mind there is something fundamentally different about subsets when compared to metadata like cube, dimension and element definitions. (Though less so when compared to, say, attributes which (as David mentioned)
can be used in rules definitions.) If you delete a cube or a dimension or an element it destroys the data. However subsets can be (and often are) created
and destroyed dynamically and at will, and short of a fundamental change to the architecture I can't see any way of the system being able to stop someone from accidentally or unintentionally destroying a subset which is used in a rule simply because they didn't realise that it
was so used. As soon as
that happens, the reliability of your output data is toast.
The solution may be to embed the MDX code of the dynamic subset in the rule definition rather than relying on a subset object as such, but I have an inkling that this would be a performance killer the likes of which not seen since Jack Nicholson did
The Shining.
But fear not, it'll probably never happen. It would add nothing to promotional demos.
