[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (ODATA-387) Replace (at least) the second example in Section 13 of the CSDL document (public comment c201305e00002)
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-387?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Stefan Drees updated ODATA-387:
-------------------------------
Description:
The public comment [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) with title "DiscontinuedProducts is a really bad example'" challenges the second example given in the document revision of CSDL that participates in CSD01 public review as "really bad at best"(citation).
The example (as copied from the html version of the CSD01 PR document) for "Other entity models may expose multiple entity sets per type. For instance, an entity model may have the following entity sets:" goes like this:
"""
<EntitySet Name="Products" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
<EntitySet Name="DiscontinuedProducts" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
"""
The original poster (OP) further states w.r.t the current example, that: "It means a Product instance changes its entity set when it becomes discontinued, and that means any existing relationships to it become illegal. There are still Order instances that need to refer to it (assuming it was ordered before it was discontinued), but now they can't intuitively refer to it because it doesn't exist in the Products entity set anymore -- it moved to the DiscontinuedProducts entity set. An Order entity would need to a DiscontinuedProduct navigation property in order to refer to it.
He then points to an example by Mike Pizzo of exposing a single type across multiple entity sets as provided to the odata.org mailing list [1](http://mailinglist.odata.org/scripts/wa-ODATA.exe?A2=ODATA;bc4700a0.1302). The commenter thinks, that "Including this example would not only provide a correct example, but it would also demonstrate a situation where the new NavigationPropertyBinding element of EntitySet is required in order to disambiguate the target entity sets of navigation properties."(citation)
For further details and possibly additional issues raised by the comment cf. [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html)
EDIT(in the light of subsequent postings to the comments mailing list in the same "thread"):
It is currently under investigation, if the following holds true:
"""
The mailing list messages as documented at [c201305e00006](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00006.html), amending and including also [c201305e00005](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00005.html), in turn amending and including also [c201305e00004](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00004.html) also amending and including [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) further delivered details and suggested content for the resolution of the issue pointed out by [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) and to be resolved by ODATA-387.
"""
was:
The public comment [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) with title "DiscontinuedProducts is a really bad example'" challenges the second example given in the document revision of CSDL that participates in CSD01 public review as "really bad at best"(citation).
The example (as copied from the html version of the CSD01 PR document) for "Other entity models may expose multiple entity sets per type. For instance, an entity model may have the following entity sets:" goes like this:
"""
<EntitySet Name="Products" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
<EntitySet Name="DiscontinuedProducts" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
"""
The original poster (OP) further states w.r.t the current example, that: "It means a Product instance changes its entity set when it becomes discontinued, and that means any existing relationships to it become illegal. There are still Order instances that need to refer to it (assuming it was ordered before it was discontinued), but now they can't intuitively refer to it because it doesn't exist in the Products entity set anymore -- it moved to the DiscontinuedProducts entity set. An Order entity would need to a DiscontinuedProduct navigation property in order to refer to it.
He then points to an example by Mike Pizzo of exposing a single type across multiple entity sets as provided to the odata.org mailing list [1](http://mailinglist.odata.org/scripts/wa-ODATA.exe?A2=ODATA;bc4700a0.1302). The commenter thinks, that "Including this example would not only provide a correct example, but it would also demonstrate a situation where the new NavigationPropertyBinding element of EntitySet is required in order to disambiguate the target entity sets of navigation properties."(citation)
For further details and possibly additional issues raised by the comment cf. [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html)
Embed the additional (potential) comment IDs in the issues description that have been generated by the original poster as subsequent postings inside the same mail thread.
> Replace (at least) the second example in Section 13 of the CSDL document (public comment c201305e00002)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ODATA-387
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-387
> Project: OASIS Open Data Protocol (OData) TC
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: OData CSDL
> Affects Versions: V4.0_CSD01
> Environment: [Applied]
> Reporter: Stefan Drees
> Assignee: Michael Pizzo
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: V4.0_CSD02
>
>
> The public comment [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) with title "DiscontinuedProducts is a really bad example'" challenges the second example given in the document revision of CSDL that participates in CSD01 public review as "really bad at best"(citation).
> The example (as copied from the html version of the CSD01 PR document) for "Other entity models may expose multiple entity sets per type. For instance, an entity model may have the following entity sets:" goes like this:
> """
> <EntitySet Name="Products" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
> <EntitySet Name="DiscontinuedProducts" EntityType="Self.Product"/>
> """
> The original poster (OP) further states w.r.t the current example, that: "It means a Product instance changes its entity set when it becomes discontinued, and that means any existing relationships to it become illegal. There are still Order instances that need to refer to it (assuming it was ordered before it was discontinued), but now they can't intuitively refer to it because it doesn't exist in the Products entity set anymore -- it moved to the DiscontinuedProducts entity set. An Order entity would need to a DiscontinuedProduct navigation property in order to refer to it.
> He then points to an example by Mike Pizzo of exposing a single type across multiple entity sets as provided to the odata.org mailing list [1](http://mailinglist.odata.org/scripts/wa-ODATA.exe?A2=ODATA;bc4700a0.1302). The commenter thinks, that "Including this example would not only provide a correct example, but it would also demonstrate a situation where the new NavigationPropertyBinding element of EntitySet is required in order to disambiguate the target entity sets of navigation properties."(citation)
> For further details and possibly additional issues raised by the comment cf. [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html)
> EDIT(in the light of subsequent postings to the comments mailing list in the same "thread"):
> It is currently under investigation, if the following holds true:
> """
> The mailing list messages as documented at [c201305e00006](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00006.html), amending and including also [c201305e00005](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00005.html), in turn amending and including also [c201305e00004](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00004.html) also amending and including [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) further delivered details and suggested content for the resolution of the issue pointed out by [c201305e00002](https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/odata-comment/201305/msg00002.html) and to be resolved by ODATA-387.
> """
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]