Re: [sdo] ISSUE 41: an API for elementForm and attributeForm

[Blaise Doughan <blaise.doughan@oracle.com>]

Hi Ron,

The approach you describe will result in properly qualified XML documents, but does not sufficiently handle the schema generation aspect which I feel is an important use case.

Metadata generation from XML schema:

• Namespace qualification rules for properties are clear
• Types could remember the schema qualification used on the define when the generate schema is performed

Metadata generation from Java annotations:

• We could add a package level annotation called @SdoXmlSchema that would allow the settings for elementFormDefault/attributeFormDefault to be set.  This would avoid the need for most XML namespace qualification needing to be done through annotations (assuming most users want elementFormDefault="qualified" and attributeFormDefault="unqualified").
• Types could remember the schema qualification used on the define when generate schema is performed.
  

Metadata generation from DataObjects:

• elementFormDefault=qualfied & attributeFormDefault=unqualified could be assumed when defining metadata this way.
  

-Blaise

Barack, Ron wrote:

1BC7B594EE497146B0CFF2F493B6823407A5A0201F@DEWDFECCR02.wdf.sap.corp" type="cite">

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/SDO-41

 

Hi Everyone,

 

Since we don’t have a construct that represents the namespace, much less the schema, I view would like to defer setting the elementFormDefault and attributeFormDefaults  until we have the appropriate targets on which to set them.  And anyway, we don’t have a requirement to produce schema that looks like a human wrote it, so that I think it is 100% satisfactory to specify on the property themselves whether they should be rendered in XML “qualified” or “unqualified”.  This is a real requirement, IMO, since it has to do with producing valid XML.

 

Whether or not a property is rendered with a namespace is currently determined by the schema (ie, when the type is defined through XSD) or by looking at the annotations on the Java getter method (@SdoXmlPropery.propertyUri).   It seems to me that the only real hole here is that

1. There is no way to specify the property URI though the API.
2. There is no way to inspect the value.

Both of these issues can be addressed by adding a new open content property, xmlPropertyUri.  We already use this approach eg in xmlElement.

 

I was going to make a concrete proposal with wording, but on reviewing the core spec, I think the description of xmlElement is extremely poor, and needs to be completely rewritten.  For instance, on reading the spec, it seems like xmlElement can only be used on openContent properties.

 

Perhaps we can get some consensus on the approach during this week’s call, and I can try for a concrete proposal for next week.

 

 

Ron