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: [sdo] Mapping of signed and unsigned integer values



We would need an issue to revise the C++ spec.  so nothing has been done so far.  In some respect this is an XML fidelity issue.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com



"James Hart" <James.Hart@roguewave.com>

08/21/2008 12:34 PM

To
Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sdo] Mapping of signed and unsigned integer values





The SCA TC is starting to work on their type mapping rules for C/C++ and is attempting to base it on the SDO mapping.  One of our Architects is on that TC (David Haney).  
 
Bryan, has there been any revision to the C++ side of the 3.0 spec yet to define previously undefined SDO to C++ type mappings?  Do we still have these undefined mappings that were brought up in may?
 
I couldn’t find an issue created for this so I wanted to bring it back to our attentions and see if there are any thoughts on this and if we could work on resolving these issues for 3.0 soon, or perhaps work with the SCA TC team and make sure we use compatible mappings.  Issue [SDO-48] is also related and I think we may have to address that issue before and finalize a resolution before we can take it a step further with the 3.0 C++ spec and define all of our currently undefined mappings.
 
Thanks,
  James
 
 
 
 



From: Bryan Aupperle [mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Friday, May 16, 2008 10:35 AM
To:
sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
[sdo] Mapping of signed and unsigned integer values

 

I was looking at the SDO integer types and had a couple of questions.


Currently the SDO type Byte is defined as an 8-bit unsigned integer, while Short, Int, and Long are 16, 32 and 64 bit signed integers respectively

Why are the not any SDO types for unsigned 16, 32, and 64 bit integers (which are valid XSD types)?  Or for that matter an 8-bit signed integer (which is what XSD:byte is)?


A related concern the mapping of XSD:byte to SDO Byte appears to be an error since -123 would be a valid value in the XML document but not in the SDO instance.


I suspect this topic has already been covered in earlier discussions so I did not want to open an issues unless there is general agreement additional SDO types are needed.


Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com



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