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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sdo message

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


Subject: Re: AW: [sdo] SDO 3 API Cleanup - first step


Hi Ron,

I'd like to make the core DataObject interface as simple as possible to 
start with (that's the interface I sent out), and have a discussion about 
whether any of the rest of the methods are really needed. I'd be happy to 
add them back, before this exercise is complete, but I think it's 
important to go through the exercise and really convince ourselves that we 
need a lot of the methods that I believe are very rarely used.

I see SDO3 as an opportunity similar to what happened with EJB3 - 
simplify! I think the answer to backward compatibility is to make sure the 
2.1 and 3.0 interfaces don't conflict, as I mention in the doc file I sent 
in my previous email.

> Can you provide some clarifications why the index accessors are removed?
> Is this something that you feel is not used in SDO 2.1?

Other than samples, I've never seen anyone use them.

> I notice that get(Property) is there, but there is no T 
get(Property,Class<T>). > Is this intentional? 

My logic is that they are simply convenience methods (with a significant 
performance implication). The property methods are really there for 
performance reasons (otherwise, why not always use the string methods?), 
so they seem like a contradiction. I'm very open to be convinced 
otherwise. 

Can you explain what you mean by using the index methods to "implement 
some kind of toString method"?

Thanks,
Frank




"Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com> 
03/17/2008 07:52 PM

To
Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc

Subject
AW: [sdo] SDO 3 API Cleanup - first step






Hi Frank,
 
Can you provide some clarifications why the index accessors are removed? 
Is this something that you feel is not used in SDO 2.1?
 
I notice that get(Property) is there, but there is no <T> T 
get(Property,Class<T>).  Is this intentional?  When you are putting in 
generics, it's bad form to force people to cast. 
 
Since we don't yet have a solution for namespaces in XPaths, I'm not so 
comfortable with removing the Property based interface, and I think the 
index based interface is useful too, for instance, when implementing some 
kind of toString() method.
 
Ron
 

________________________________

Von: Frank Budinsky [mailto:frankb@ca.ibm.com]
Gesendet: Mo 17.03.2008 21:28
An: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [sdo] SDO 3 API Cleanup - first step



Hi guys,

I've taken a pass at defining a new SDO 3 version of DataObject. You may
hardly recognize it :-) It's gone down from 119 to 24 methods (one of
which is new). The main changes are:

1) move from package commonj.sdo to org.oasis.sdo
2) use Java 5 generics
3) deprecate/remove int-based accessors and a couple of other methods
4) rename some methods to avoid name collisions with SDO 2.1 and static
SDOs

I've attached the new proposed interface, and a short doc file that
includes a table that shows all the changes being proposed.

If possible, I would like to spend 20 min or so of tomorrow's call talking
about this.

Thanks,
Frank








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