OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

odata message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (ODATA-812) Allow omitting namespaces for unambiguous functions/actions

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/ODATA-812?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=60676#comment-60676 ] 

Mark Stafford commented on ODATA-812:

Our implementation and work with internal teams has put us on a slightly different path. We already support unqualified operations in some of our flagship OData APIs. The approach we are taking at the moment is to establish a set of precedence rules similar to order-of-operations. These same APIs also support key-as-segment semantics, which is part of the reason we landed on precedence as a reasonable solution rather than being really restrictive in what the protocol would allow.

In our stacks we have following possible conflicts: properties, unqualified operations, unqualified type casts, key segments. We apply our precedence rules to help determine which match wins, and we leave it to services to worry about what happens if there is a conflict and something is inaccessible. We have found this to be sufficient self-motivation, and fewer rules means fewer things our stacks have to check, which means better performance.

The downside to this approach is that it obviously could come as a surprise to some services/consumers. We have not seen that happen, but we do acknowledge the possibility.

> Allow omitting namespaces for unambiguous functions/actions
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ODATA-812
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/ODATA-812
>             Project: OASIS Open Data Protocol (OData) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: OData Protocol
>    Affects Versions: V4.0_ERRATA02
>         Environment: [Proposed]
>            Reporter: Michael Pizzo
>              Labels: AdoptionBlocker
>             Fix For: V4.01_WD01
> I hear a lot of pushback on having to qualify functions/actions when invoking.
> We can support unqualified function/actions as long as they don't conflict with any properties.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]