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: Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - Volunteers for writing it up?


Hi Frank,

 

SDO’s metamodel is based on XSD, and in XSD it is at least syntactically possible to specify a default value that does not fit to the type.  But there’s no reason why SDO can’t do better here.  I don’t think it’s such a big can of worms to add a new “defaultValue” property to Type, and then to say that if the property does not define a default value, the default value of a property is the default value of the type.   The only thing is we’d need to define a new “sdo:defaultValue” annotation, so that we can round trip from SDO to XML Schema.

 

Is there now agreement on which proposal we will go with, and on how it should be written up? I think the main disadvantage of the proposal is that it leaks around various corners of the spec.  For instance, we now have to say that when the user tries to define a type with sdo:Integer, sdo:IntObject will be used instead.  This affects both the API and schema.  Are there any volunteers to write it up?  Maybe we can split it up, where one takes the Java spec, and someone else takes the core spec.  If splitting up, I’ll take the Java spec…

 

Best Regards

Ron

 

Von: Frank Budinsky [mailto:frankb@ca.ibm.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. August 2010 19:40
An: Barack, Ron
Cc: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true

 

Hi Ron,

I guess you're right that returning null from get(oddProperty) would be a breaking change.

That said, I think SDO has a fundamental bug if the default default value of a property (i.e., the default value of a type) is a value that is not in the value set of the type. For example, I think it would be ridiculous to say that a type that is defined to be one of the values 1, 2, or 3 has a default value of 0. It's like saying the default value of boolean is "hello" :-) The spec refers to default value of null as "no default", so making it null at least makes sense at the metadata level.

You are right that (current) code that is calling get(the123Prop) would not be expecting to ever get a value of null, but I think they would be equally surprised to get a value of 0. They really need to check isSet(), before calling get(), to ensure that what they get back is meaningful.

This really is a can of worms. This default value problem is really a new issue, different from the nillable issue.

Frank.


Inactive hide details for "Barack, Ron" ---08/26/2010 12:44:06 PM---Hi Guys, I'm missing something here: is having getInteger(o"Barack, Ron" ---08/26/2010 12:44:06 PM---Hi Guys, I'm missing something here: is having getInteger(oddProperty) return null breaking change


From:


"Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>


To:


Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Blaise Doughan <blaise.doughan@oracle.com>


Cc:


"sdo@lists.oasis-open.org" <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>


Date:


08/26/2010 12:44 PM


Subject:


AW: [sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true





Hi Guys,

I’m missing something here: is having getInteger(oddProperty) return null breaking change? I mean, you can argue that the default value should be on type rather than property, but that’s really not the issue here. Current code that deals with user-defined simple types deriving from xs:integer will not expect to get nulls.

I don’t know why “it makes no sense to force a default value on a restricted type“. It seems rather like you are argueing that SDO is missing the default default value on (user-defined) types. To my mind, the concept is already there, but the proposal hangs together much better if this concept was built out in our metadata. It would be cool to say “odd” as a default value of 1, wherever it is used. Seems a little late to be playing with the metamodel, tho. In any case, removing the second part of the proposal doesn’t do away with the concept of types having a default default value, or the problem that they may or may not fit. It makes the situation worse in that it allows null to be the default default values in cases where we know null does not fit.

Do you guys agree that the section on schema-SDO mapping is not the place to handle this? After all, you could get the same conflict through the api, declaring the property with sdo:integer and then the property with nullable. In fact, right now, you could even define a nullable property with type sdo:integer: we don’t say that the property’s types should be automatically adjusted. I would suggest that in the schema sdo table we have a simple mapping, but refer the user to section 5.2.2. In this section, we all have to describe how a conflict between a nullable property and a non-nullable type (we’d have to somehow define this) is handled. And then, in the Java spec, we define which SDO types this affects.

Best Regards,
Ron


Von: Frank Budinsky [mailto:frankb@ca.ibm.com]
Gesendet:
Donnerstag, 26. August 2010 17:38
An:
Blaise Doughan
Cc:
sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff:
Re: [sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true

Good point Blaise. In retrospect, using a primitive base type is a bad idea, period.

I think I'm warming up to your proposal, but let's just go with Proposal 1 then. Forget about Proposal 2, since it makes no sense to force a default value on a restricted type, which may or may not even be in the value set of the type.

Frank.

Inactive hide details for Blaise Doughan ---08/26/2010 11:18:52 AM---If the base type was SDO Int the default value would stillBlaise Doughan ---08/26/2010 11:18:52 AM---If the base type was SDO Int the default value would still be 0 :). -Blaise


From:


Blaise Doughan <blaise.doughan@oracle.com>


To:


Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA


Cc:


"sdo@lists.oasis-open.org" <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>


Date:


08/26/2010 11:18 AM


Subject:


Re: [sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true






If the base type was SDO Int the default value would still be 0 :).

-Blaise

Frank Budinsky wrote:

One other thing with this part:

Proposal 2 - Set the default default value for properties corresponding to extended primitive types to the base primitive types default value

What would happen if the base type's default value is not in the value set of the restricted subtype. For example, a default value of 0 for type OddInt would be "odd" :-)

Frank.

Inactive hide details for Frank Budinsky---08/26/2010 10:47:23 AM---Hi Blaise, Your proposal is clean and does work nicely, butFrank Budinsky---08/26/2010 10:47:23 AM---Hi Blaise, Your proposal is clean and does work nicely, but it has one serious


From:


Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA


To:


Blaise Doughan
<blaise.doughan@oracle.com>


Cc:


"sdo@lists.oasis-open.org" <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>


Date:


08/26/2010 10:47 AM


Subject:


Re: [sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true






Hi Blaise,

Your proposal is clean and does work nicely, but it has one serious disadvantage IMO.

From what I've seen, user defined simple types seem to be rarely (almost never) nillable. The reason, I presume, is because the purpose of the subtype is to specify a restricted subset of the values allows by the type. It seems to be uncommon to combine such a restriction of the value set with an extension of the value set to allow null.

If this is the case, your proposal is penalizing all restricted type users (i.e., forcing them to work with Object instead of the simpler primitive type) just to accommodate a very rare use case.

Frank.


Inactive hide details for Blaise Doughan ---08/26/2010 10:18:20 AM---Hello All, Below is a more detailed description of the OraBlaise Doughan ---08/26/2010 10:18:20 AM---Hello All, Below is a more detailed description of the Oracle proposal for SDO 99.


From:


Blaise Doughan
<blaise.doughan@oracle.com>


To:


"sdo@lists.oasis-open.org" <sdo@lists.oasis-open.org>


Date:


08/26/2010 10:18 AM


Subject:


[sdo] Oracle Proposal: SDO 99 - ISSUE 99: Error in allocating SDO Type for elements with nillable=true






Hello All,

Below is a more detailed description of the Oracle proposal for SDO 99.

Section 7.4.2 of the Core Spec regarding nillable simple elements


"If the type of the element has Simple Content without attributes, a Java Type with an Object instance class is assigned. For example, IntObject instead of Int.

In an XML document, xsi:nil="true" corresponds to a null value for this property."


Current Issue - What to do with derived simple types?

If oddInt extends xsd:int currently


Section 7.3.2 of the Core Spec regarding extended simple types

Simple Type with name

<simpleType name=[NAME]>
<restriction base=[BASE]/>
</simpleType>

corresponds to:

Type name=[NAME]
base=[BASE]
dataType=true
uri=[URI]

Meaning that our "oddInt" type will have the super type of Int. THIS is where I think the spec is wrong. Instead of extending Int, it should extend IntObject since this type may be used by a nillable element.


Proposal 1 - Change Section 7.3.2

base="[BASE]" if base is capable or represented null, other wise the base corresponds to the corresponding object type

Proposal 2 - Set the default default value for properties corresponding to extended primitive types to the base primitive types default value


Consequences

With the above proposals the impact on the user should be minimal:

· The user would see a different super type on their extended simple type
· Null would become a valid value on that property, but user would still have to explicitly set a null value.

Advantages

· There is only one SDO type that corresponds to an extended simple type in an XML schema:

· Useful if you want to regenerate the XML Schema from the types
· Useful if you want to have an editor or validator associated with that type
· Having one type requires less memory than having multiple copies of that type

· Simpler to implement (logic is restricted to type definition, and only when an extended simple type is encountered).
· Simpler to write the description in the specification

-Blaise



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