[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 29 - Proposal For Vote
Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > The reference to XPATH 2.0 isn't relevant, XPATH 1.0 != XPATH 2.0. For future reference, my e-mails are shorter and more to the point when I quote the XPath 2.0 and only the XPath 2.0 specification, since that version is much better organized and better articulated. I assume that most members of this group will find the more readable/concise text easier to follow, and that the few members who are deeply interested in this subject can go and validate my statements against the XPath 1.0 specification. I will always point out if there are differences between the two specs (see below). > > And at the end of the letter you point out yourself that you wouldn't > want to use empty node-sets as the context but that is exactly what > your proposal requires. To further clarify, my proposal requires that you either pass an empty root node (XPath 1.0) or an empty document node (XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0)* as the context node, in compliance with these specifications. If it's still not clear, can you point out where I'm being confusing? Assaf * You should note the name difference between the two specs. > > Yaron > > Assaf Arkin wrote: > >> Yaron Y. Goland wrote: >> >> > I realize I'm being thick but I don't believe the sections you quote >> > solve the problem. The key issue is - is there such a thing as an >> > empty node in XPATH? I believe the answer to be no. >> >> I believe the answer is found in the XPath data model specification: >> >> "Document Nodes *must* satisfy the following constraints. >> >> 1. >> >> The *children* *must* consist exclusively of Element, Processing >> Instruction, Comment, and Text Nodes if it is not empty. >> Attribute, namespace, and Document Nodes can never appear as >> children >> >> 2. >> >> If a node /N/ is among the *children* of a Document Node /D/, then >> the *parent* of /N/ *must* be /D/. >> >> 3. >> >> If a node /N/ has a *parent* Document Node /D/, then /N/ *must* be >> among the *children* of /D/." >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#DocumentNode >> >> You may also want to look at XPath implementations to see what they >> accept as context node as part of their formal API. I will be interested >> in hearing of an implementation that doesn't accept an empty context >> node. For example, the Java 1.5 XPath library: >> >> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/javax/xml/xpath/package-summary.html >> >> >> (you can see the example at the bottom) >> >> > An alternative argument is - is there such a thing as an empty >> > node-list in XPATH? There I think the answer is potentially yes. But >> > it isn't clear to me if an empty node-list can be legally used as a >> > context for an expression because all de-references would be illegal. >> > E.g. /foo would be an automatic fault but "/" would NOT. That worries >> > me alot. I think it's misleading to allow "/" to work but "/foo" not >> > to. I think it's better for users if we just ban "/". >> >> I don't know of many implementations that support a node-set as an >> evaluation context, and I wouldn't want to rely on anything that's >> implementation specific. >> >> Assaf >> >> > >> > Yaron >> > >> > Assaf Arkin wrote: >> > >> >> Yaron Y. Goland wrote: >> >> >> >> > This proposal is only relevant if we don't decide to adopt a >> >> mechanism >> >> > to map properties to XPATH variables. >> >> > >> >> > As for the desire to use XPATH 1.0 in a standard manner, >> >> unfortunately >> >> > that is quite impossible given our semantics. It is explicitly >> >> illegal >> >> > to have a null context node in XPATH 1.0. In section 1, the >> >> > introduction to XPATH 1.0, a series of requirements are listed >> for >> >> > defining the context in which a XPATH executes. List in there >> is a >> >> > node (explicitly referred to as the context node). This is then >> >> > followed by a requirement for a pair of non-zero positive >> integers >> >> > identifying the context position and context size. If the >> context is >> >> > empty or null then these two numbers would have to be 0 and >> that's >> >> > explicitly prohibited. Hence why we already are forced into a >> >> > situation where we have to require a BPEL specific XPATH >> processor. >> >> >> >> It is illegal to have a null context node, it is permissible to >> have an >> >> empty context node. My suggestion takes XPath into account so it >> doesn't >> >> violate any XPath rules. So my suggestion still stands, now let me >> >> explain why it works. >> >> >> >> The context size refers to the size of the node-set which >> contains the >> >> current context node, while the position refers to the position >> of the >> >> current context node in that node-set. When you begin evaluating an >> >> XPath expression - the initial values are 1 and 1, meaning one >> element >> >> in the node-set (the context node) in the first ordinal position. It >> >> matters not what the contents of the context node is, i.e. >> whether it's >> >> a document, an element, a text node, or an empty node. >> >> >> >> The XPath 1.0 specification is easy to misread. If you try to >> implement >> >> it, you will soon catch this subtelty when you have to implement >> >> functions like count() and position(), but without going deep >> it's easy >> >> to misread it. I suggest referring to the XPath 2.0 >> specification, which >> >> is not fundamentally different on this issue, just more >> expressive and >> >> precise: >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> >> Definition: The *context item* is the item currently being >> >> processed. An item is either an atomic value or a >> >> node.][Definition: When the context item is a node, it can >> also be >> >> referred to as the *context node*.] The context item is >> returned >> >> by an expression consisting of a single dot (|.|). When an >> >> expression |E1/E2| or |E1[E2]| is evaluated, each item in the >> >> sequence obtained by evaluating |E1| becomes the context >> item in >> >> the inner focus for an evaluation of |E2|. >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> >> [Definition: The *context position* is the position of the >> context >> >> item within the sequence of items currently being >> processed.] It >> >> changes whenever the context item changes. Its value is >> always an >> >> integer greater than zero. The context position is returned >> by the >> >> expression |fn:position()|. When an expression |E1/E2| or >> |E1[E2]| >> >> is evaluated, the context position in the inner focus for an >> >> evaluation of |E2| is the position of the context item in the >> >> sequence obtained by evaluating |E1|. The position of the >> first >> >> item in a sequence is always 1 (one). The context position is >> >> always less than or equal to the context size. >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> >> [Definition: The *context size* is the number of items in the >> >> sequence of items currently being processed.] Its value is >> always >> >> an integer greater than zero. The context size is returned >> by the >> >> expression |fn:last()|. When an expression |E1/E2| or >> |E1[E2]| is >> >> evaluated, the context size in the inner focus for an >> evaluation >> >> of |E2| is the number of items in the sequence obtained by >> >> evaluating |E1|. >> >> >> >> Assaf >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Yaron >> >> > >> >> > Assaf Arkin wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> -1 >> >> >> >> >> >> If we decide to manifest properties as independent XPath >> variables, >> >> >> then we have a syntax that is consistent in how variable >> values are >> >> >> accessed, directly (the entire variable) or indirectly (a >> >> property of >> >> >> the variable). I happen to be on the side that likes >> consistency and >> >> >> abhors making changes to XPath implementations. >> >> >> >> >> >> "We have in the past altered XPATH in order to suit our >> needs. For >> >> >> example, in some BPEL expressions we have banned the use of the >> >> >> global context node, a node whose presence is actually >> mandated by >> >> >> the XPATH specification. If we are willing to change XPATH >> that much >> >> >> I see no reason not to change it here as well. In for a dime, >> in for >> >> >> a dollar." >> >> >> >> >> >> Since we have nothing to pass in the context node, wouldn't >> it be >> >> >> easier if we use the XPath specification to achieve that >> instead of >> >> >> forcing implementations to deviate from the specification, write >> >> >> custom XPath implementations (only for BPEL), and so forth. The >> >> XPath >> >> >> specification mandates that you pass a context node, but the >> XPath >> >> >> specification does not require the context node to have any >> content >> >> >> in it. You can pass an empty root node (XPath 1.0) or an empty >> >> >> document node (XPath 2.0) and be in full comformance with the >> XPath >> >> >> specification and the BPEL model at the same time. >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's keep it simple (that's what this issue is all about). >> Get the >> >> >> semantics we want for expressions, but without having to change >> >> >> existing specifications or implementations. >> >> >> >> >> >> assaf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yaron Y. Goland wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Issue 29 - Simplification of XPath expressions >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Proposal: Require that all arguments to BPEL defined XPATH >> >> functions >> >> >>> must be quoted strings that are statically defined within >> the XPATH >> >> >>> expression. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Note: This proposal won't be necessary if we decide to manifest >> >> >>> properties as independent XPATH variables since this would >> let us >> >> >>> get rid of getVariableProperty. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Rationale: >> >> >>> >> >> >> getVariableProperty(getVariableProperty(foo,bar),getVariableProperty(ick,bick)) >> >> >> >> >> >>> is completely legal in XPATH. This is a problem because such an >> >> >>> expression makes it impossible to statically analyze the >> expression >> >> >>> that contains the function call and determine what variable is >> >> being >> >> >>> referenced. This is problematic for static analysis of the >> process >> >> >>> because it makes it impossible to determine what variable and >> >> >>> property are being accessed so there is no way to check if that >> >> >>> variable is accessible from that point in the BPEL process >> >> >>> definition or if the variable has the referenced property >> >> defined on >> >> >>> it. Even worse (in my mind anyway) is that the previous >> plays havoc >> >> >>> with optimizations for compensation handling. If the previous >> >> >>> function was contained within a compensation handler then there >> >> >>> would be no way to know what variable was being accessed and >> so the >> >> >>> BPEL process would have no choice but to persist all variables >> >> >>> visible from the compensation handler, major yuck! >> >> >>> We have in the past altered XPATH in order to suit our >> needs. >> >> >>> For example, in some BPEL expressions we have banned the use >> of the >> >> >>> global context node, a node whose presence is actually >> mandated by >> >> >>> the XPATH specification. If we are willing to change XPATH that >> >> much >> >> >>> I see no reason not to change it here as well. In for a >> dime, in >> >> for >> >> >>> a dollar. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Section 9.1 - >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Add a new paragraph after the following paragraph "Any >> qualified >> >> >>> names used within XPath expressions are resolved by using >> namespace >> >> >>> declarations currently in scope in the WS-BPEL document at the >> >> >>> location of the expression.": >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The arguments to all XPATH functions defined in this >> specification >> >> >>> MUST be given as quoted strings. The previous requirement >> MUST be >> >> >>> statically enforced. It is therefore illegal to pass into a >> BPEL >> >> >>> XPATH function any XPATH variables, the output of XPATH >> >> functions, a >> >> >>> XPATH location path or any other value that is not a quoted >> string. >> >> >>> This means, for example, that >> getVariableProperty("varA","propB") >> >> >>> meets the previous requirement while >> >> >>> >> >> >> getVariableProperty($varA,string(getVariableProperty("varB","propB")) >> >> >>> does not. Note that the previous requirement institutes a >> >> >>> restriction which does not exist in the XPATH standard. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
begin:vcard fn:Assaf Arkin n:Arkin;Assaf org:Intalio adr;dom:;;1000 Bridge Parkway Ste 210;Redwood City;CA;94065 email;internet:arkin@intalio.com title:Chief Architect tel;work:(650) 596-1800 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://www.intalio.com version:2.1 end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]