[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: [sdo] ISSUE 124: Proposal
Hi Christophe,
Whether the implementation stores the referenced objects in
memory or calculates them as part of the serialization is an implementation
detail. All we are doing with declaring orphan
properties is simply to allow the user control of where there orphans are
marshalled, given the user a bit of control over how the XML looks.
If you want to think of the orphans as being only in XML, and not in memory,
that's OK. As far as SDO is concerned, the orphan properties (like
the tech root) vanishes when SDO parses the XML, However, when the XML is
processed by some other framework, the fact that SDO produces awkward XML
could create a barrier to integrating SDO with other XML frameworks.
As Radu pointed out, it's a little bogus to have a {commonj.sdo}DataGraph
object, whose root element is a technical root. It would be
less awkward to combine {commonj.sdo}DataGraph and
{commonj.sdo}TechnicalRoot.
Like I said, the only reason to define orphan properties is
to control where orphan objects are serialized into the XML. If it
is desireable to seperate the orphans by type (the way XCalia originally
suggested), then this can be specified. If you want the orphans
collected at a particular type (eg, Employee or Department), then this
is doable too.
Von: Christophe Boutard [mailto:christophe.boutard@xcalia.com] Gesendet: Montag, 5. Mai 2008 11:50 An: Barack, Ron; sdo@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: RE: [sdo] ISSUE 124: Proposal Hi Ron,
everyone, Here are my comments
inline… Best
Regards, --Christophe De : Barack, Ron
[mailto:ron.barack@sap.com] Hi
Christophe, everyone, I really
want to try to resolve SDO-124 at next weeks meeting. Let's try to find a
solution that combines aspects of the various approaches, and see if we can get
everyone to sign up to it. The
criticism that the orphan properties are visible through the API is valid, and I
agree that users will typically not want to see such properties amoung their
business objects. On the other hand, {commonj.sdo}DataGraph is not a
business object, it's already a technical object, but I guess that not
everything will be packed in a DataGraph. <Christophe> I
want to be sure to get your point. Are you talking about the DataGraph object in
memory or only its XML serialized format. The end of the mail let me think that
you are talking about the in memory object. If it
only deals with XML that’s fine for me but in the other case I would not like to
have to maintain the graph closure in memory </Christophe> One
solution would be to make orphan properties even more special: to make them
invisible. That is, orphan properties appear neither in the list of
propertys defined by a type, nor in the instance properties of the data
object. They appear only when generating XSD from the type metadata, and
of course, in the XML generated by an XMLHelper.save(). This is
essentially the behaviour that Oracle has proposed for orphans, the only
difference is that they are not generated, but created as part of the type
definition. <Christophe> It is
almost the same question. You said that the “hidden” properties only appear in
the XML, so the question is why do we need to have these properties definitions?
I think that they can be generated by the implementation at XML serialization
time. More
generally I’m really interested in the concept of having invisible properties in
SDO even independently of the Containment discussion </Christophe> The
burden is still on the user to define the appropriate orphan properties, or to
pack his objects in a DataGraph. Therefore, it is still possible to
generate GraphNotClosed exceptions. If we want to make these exceptions a
thing of the past, we need to have technical root as a fallback mechanism.
We'd need to extend the proposal as follows: <Christophe>
I’m
really not convinced by the first statement As I said in previous emails I
think that these technical things should be managed by the implementation
otherwise it will introduce a lot of complexity for the
users. I’ve
also a particular question about the way objects are packed in a DataGraph. I’m
worrying about seeing some mechanisms that ensure the DataGraph closure in
memory. Let
me try to develop this point… If a
user adds an object in the graph, I suppose that the implementation will
automatically ensure that the object will be added to the orphans if it has no
container. If it is not done in that way I don’t see why the orphan properties
are not only added at serialization time. If I
understand correctly we have three approaches : 1-
The
user defines the orphans properties in its Types if there is no real DataGraph
envelope. 2-
The
user has nothing to do if there is a DataGraph containing the Orphans. I’m not
sure about that, I think your answers to the previous questions will help
me… 3-
If 1
or 2 are not enough, then the implementation will add the Technical
Root. Having
these three approaches could be a good point but it will lead to produce
slightly different XMLs depending on the data graph structure to
serialize. </Christophe> 1.
Define the type {commonj.sdo}TechnicalRoot as Frank has described it, with 2
properties, a "businessRoot" and an "orphans" property. 2.
The TechnicalRoot is specially treated during parsing (ie,
XMLHelper.load): it does not appear in the resulting XMLDocument. It
is simply an artifact of XML (de-)serialization. 3.
Before serializing to XML, the various XMLHelper.save methods must first assure
that the data graph is closed. If it is not closed, the serialization
mechanism must insert a technical root object as the root node of the graph
before serializing it. <Christophe>
Agree
with the three statements as a definition of technical
root. </Christophe> Like I
said, I think it would be good (and I think, it's doable) to resolve SDO-124
next week. Can I ask everyone to spend a few cycles evaluating the
proposals, bringing forward issues. It's also OK to send an email saying
if a solution is satisfactory... this gives me an idea of how far we are from
reaching consensus. Thanks, Ron Von: Christophe
Boutard [mailto:christophe.boutard@xcalia.com] Hi Ron, Here are my comments
inline... -----Message d'origine----- Hi Christophe, Drawing a distinction between "the role of Containment in
the DataGraph Closure and the concept of Composition" sounds very interesting,
but I'm not at all sure what exactly you are suggesting. What API changes
are you thinking about? Would containment no longer be used in generating
XML? <Christophe>
I’m not thinking
about API modifications but mainly in clarifying things. Let me try to
elaborate… 1.
From my point of view a DataGraph is a set of interconnected DataObjects by
Containment or Non Containment. At this point the containment is nothing more
than a specific kind of relationship. It does not participate to the DataGraph
definition 2.
Then Containment itself should be defined as composition. 3.
Finally from the XML serialization point of view, the concept of DataGraph
closure should be introduced. But only at this point in order to maintain the
Data Model and its XML serialized format totally decoupled. This closure can
rely on Containment and the orphans management has to be integrated in order to
ensure a tree based structure because we are dealing with
XML. </Christophe> Whether or not surfacing the orphans through the API is a
bug or a feature is a matter of taste. As with ChangeSummary, I imagine
the most common case to be that the user packs his data objects inside of a
{commonj.sdo}DataGraph, and since DataGraph has an orphans property, the user
will never have to worry about whether the graph is closed. In this
case, I don't think it's intrusive to say that DataGraph has an orphans property
that is accessible through the API... In fact, there could be use-cases for it
(though none come to mind right now, other than some sort of error
checking). <Christophe> I think I got your
point but I’m not comfortable with a concept which introduces something (I
mean some properties) without any meaning in the business model represented by
the SDO Types. As said in my previous email we have to be careful because having
this kind of orphan Properties always present in each DataGraph could lead us to
problems when trying to create relationships between two
DataGraphs. But I’m interested
in concrete use cases for that but basically if we consider that a user has to
choose between “containment” and “non containment” for a relationship, I think
that he should only be focused on the semantic aspect of that choice which is
“composition or not”. I may be wrong but
currently I think these use cases will be more technical than business oriented
and in consequence the orphans management should be
hidden. </Christophe> I'm not sure that any of the proposals has any solution
for managing references that are unresolved within a graph, but resolvable in
some larger context. For that, we need a concept of identity. We
also need to be able to choose between whether we serialize object or their
Ids. Please see the 4th and 5th paragaphs of
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sdo/email/archives/200804/msg00069.html
for an idea of how SDO-66 (together with SDO-125 and SDO-128) could maybe help
here. <Christophe> I really like the
idea of having KeyTypes compatible with Types in order to represent a kind of
“Hollow” DataObjects. Now from a DAS point of view I’ve planned to start ASAP a
discussion in order to distinguish the difference between “null” and “not
loaded” which means when you call myDO.get(“aDataObjectProperty”) and you get
null, does it mean that the property is "loaded and null" or just "not loaded".
It seems to be again a new reason for being synchronized between DAS and SDO
TCs. </Christophe> Best Regards, Ron -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Christophe Boutard
[mailto:christophe.boutard@xcalia.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. April 2008 16:31 An: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: [sdo] RE: Spam detected by the Fortinet Antispam
RE: [sdo] ISSUE 124: Proposal Hi all, Due to OASIS membership issues, Xcalia members were
temporarily unable to post on and receive messages from the SDO3 mailing list
since mid past week. Now everything has been fixed, and I'll try to provide
some points we wanted to make about the containment issue. First from a pure TechnicalRoot point of view, I really
like Frank's proposal which make the TechnicalRoot more generic and so more easy
to standardize. Just as a quick reminder because his email has been sent
one week ago, I paste here his XSD proposal : <xsd:complexType
name="TechincalRoot"> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element
name="buisinessRoot" type="xsd:anyType" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"
/> <xsd:element
name="orphans" type="xsd:anyType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> <xsd:element name="xmlDataGraph"
type="TechnicalRoot"/> From our point of view, this proposal is a very good one
and we do not have particular reasons for having a "per type" list of orphans
except the following example: Suppose that a Company has 10000 Employees by non
containment. These two employees share the same Address by non
containment. Then the produced XML will be: <xmlDataGraph> <businessRoot
xsi:type="tns:Company"
<name>Company1</name>
<employees>Employee1</employees>
<employees>Employee2</employees> ...
<employees>Employee10000</employees> </businessRoot> <orphans
xsi:type="tns:Employee">
<name>Employee1</name>
<address>Address1</address> </orphans> <orphans
xsi:type="tns:Employee">
<name>Employee2</name>
<address>Address1</address> </orphans> ... <orphans
xsi:type="tns:Employee">
<name>Employee10000</name>
<address>Address1</address> </orphans> <orphans
xsi:type="tns:Address">
<street>Address1</street> </orphans> <xmlDataGraph> Now assume that a modification is made on the Address1
instance. The ChangeSummary will reference it but having all the orphans stored
at the same level will lead to check the 10000 employees in order to locate the
Address. I'm not sure this a SDO specific problem (it may be more a XML parser /
XPath / SDO implementation issue) but it may raise a performance
issue. Second point concerns a remark from Blaise saying that the
TechnicalRoot does not address the following use case where TypeA has a
containment property to TypeB and where we want to have B as the document
Root. Indeed the TechnicalRoot is not (currently) able to deal
with that use case for the following reason: We assume that containment
relationships are there for defining a "Composition" which means (IMO) that the
instance of Type B is only reachable from its parent. I think that the Oracle's proposal also consider contained
object with the same semantic and for that reason I'm a little bit lost by a use
case which consider a non identifiable object as a root. Now I'm back to the last proposal made by Ron (on
SDO-124)... First, the good point is that it seems to allow everyone
to produce any kind of XML but based on Xcalia's TechnicalRoot implementation
experience, I'm a bit worrying to see that the concept of "orphan properties"
accessible from the API. As I said in our last document and during the F2F meeting,
our first TechRoot implementation was still visible for the users. We
encountered lots of problems when trying to merge data graphs (e.g. create
references from a datagraph to another) and mainly issues to maintain the
different "orphans" lists (not only data but also information relative to change
summaries). I would like to spend more time thinking about use cases
based on Ron's proposal and summarize up the Xcalia point of
view. The first thing for us is to clarify the "containment"
definition which may imply a clean distinction between the role of
Containment in the DataGraph Closure and the concept of
Composition. We believe that the Containment should only be used for
the second role. IMO, this point is very well explained in Blaise's
proposal. Then the second point consists in being able to serialize
a non closed graph. For this particular point, I think whatever the solution is
(Blaise's proposal, Ron's, TechRoot, a combination of all) the main point is to
consider the solution as an artifact for serialization and not an evolution of
the SDO model. In consequence users should not be aware of this technical
things and again (IMO) do not have to define themselves the orphan
properties. Best Regards, --Christophe -----Message d'origine----- De : Radu Preotiuc-Pietro [mailto:radup@bea.com]
Envoyé : mardi 29 avril 2008 03:11 À : ron.barack@sap.com;
sdo@lists.oasis-open.org Objet : Spam detected by the Fortinet Antispam RE:
[sdo] ISSUE 124: Proposal This is a very interesting proposal. Obviously I like the
aspect of having DataGraph take on the extra duties. Two
comments: 1) I think this "sdo:orphan" property is still special:
even if one can only get it, still, this get is different than the normal
SDO get which simply returns the reference. In this case, get() will
involve building the closure of the tree starting at the node the method is
called on, because between any two calls, the set of orphans might
change. That's not necessarily a show-stopper, but it's still "special
behavior", even compared with getChangeSummary(). 2) I am wondering if we should also have the restriction
that the type of the property must be "DataObject", so that we can use
xsi:type to transmit the type information for the orphans. I don't
think we need the element names for the orphans, but the types we probably
do. Radu > -----Original Message----- > From: ron.barack@sap.com [mailto:ron.barack@sap.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:40 PM > To: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [sdo] ISSUE 124: Proposal > > Hi, > > I would like to formulate my idea, expressed in
another > thread, as a proposed approach to issue
124. > > I think that the approach combines some of the
positive > features of both Oracle's and XCalia's proposal,
reuses a > pattern already used in SDO 2.1, therefore fits in
well with > the rest of SDO, and is backwards
compatible. > > Types may have one or more properties annotated as
"orphan" > properties. Orphan properties that are defined
through an > XSD are annotated with sdo:orphan="true".
Orphan properties > that are defined through the API have an open content
> property {commonj.sdo}Orphans with value
true. > > This annotation may only be used on a read-only
multivalued > property. The annotation may not be used on a
property with > a data type. > > This annotation may only be used on a property with
> containment="true". > > Calling a set method on a property, or modifying the
list > returned by this property must throw an
exception. > > Getting the value of this property (either through
> DataObject.get() or through the static interface)
returns a > list of objects that are referenced by the graph, but
not > contained in the tree whose root is the node having
the > "orphans" property and whose type matches the type of
the property. > > {commonj.sdo}DataGraph gets a new property with the
orphans > annotation, and type DataObject. However, other
types may > also have a similarly annotated
properties. > > The orphan property may appear in a tree: at
the root or at > a leaf node. Types with orphan properties may
even appear > with trees whose roots have orphan properties, or as
> "brothers" of such, etc. In such cases, an
implementation is > free to place the referenced object in the list of
any > suitible property, however, the implementation must
also > assure that the normal rules of containment apply,
namely, > that the referenced object appears exactly once in
the graph. > > Having such a property, it is easy to create a
technical root > type. Users can specify if they what the
technical root to > give the referenced objects in a "heap" or to sort
them by type. > > By putting an orphan property on a Business Object
(like > Employee, Department, Address), we get XML that looks
like > the XML produced from Blaise's algorithm. That
is, without > unexpected root nodes. > > Best Regards, > Ron > Notice: This email message, together with any
attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems,
Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may
be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally
privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named
in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this
message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group
and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group
and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]