Your latest changes look fine to me.
On 21 Jul 2014, at 13:00, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gr...@sap.com> wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
> I implemented the suggested changes (new syntax and NSDateFormatter
> caching). I also discussed 1) with Florian and he said that they had a
> similar discussion when they implemented escaping for OpenCMIS and they
> decided to go for the ‘?’ approach because it is easier to implement and
> well known from JDBC implementations.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lukas
>
> PS: I will start the release this afternoon if there are no more comments
> on my changes
>
> On 21/07/14 01:04 pm, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornw...@alfresco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lukas,
>>
>> I discussed 1) with Mike this morning and we don’t think it needs doing
>> for the 0.4 release. In fact, as you point out, this is the approach used
>> for Prepared statements and the OpenCMIS implementation is always our
>> reference so if that’s the way it’s been implemented there too, let’s
>> leave it as it is.
>>
>> It would be good to do the others though, I’m still used to the old way
>> of doing things too, but I do agree that new code should be added using
>> the new/modern syntax.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gr...@sap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Mike has some valid points regarding the escaping implementation. Please
>>> find my comments below.
>>>
>>> 1- I used Œ?¹ as parameter token because I basically followed the
>>> OpenCMIS
>>> implementation. Furthermore this is a common pattern also in other
>>> Prepared Statement implementations.
>>> If I got you right you suggest to use {1} Š {n} parameters in the string
>>> and then use rangeOf to find and replace them instead of parsing the
>>> string character by character.
>>>
>>> 2 - I will change this one
>>>
>>> 3 - The new syntax is definitively nicer and I use it especially when
>>> initializing large arrays or dictionaries. However I¹m still kind of
>>> used
>>> to writing old-fashioned code... but I can change this, if it makes you
>>> sleep better :)
>>>
>>> 4- I will check this
>>>
>>> Is 1) something we should consider changing before releasing 0.4? Is
>>> everyone the same opinion as Mike? The current approach follows the
>>> OpenCMIS implementation. Do we want to have something different here?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Lukas
>>>
>>> On 18/07/14 02:39 pm, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornw...@alfresco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I raised and fixed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-823 to
>>>> cover the category issue I mentioned in the status call earlier this
>>>> week.
>>>>
>>>> I¹ve also committed an update to release.sh to use the version number
>>>> defined in ObjectiveCMIS.xcconfig so we only have to change it in one
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> I had a quick look at the query escaping changes, I don¹t have anything
>>>> else to add over and above what Mike said.
>>>>
>>>> That completes all the changes we wanted to make for 0.4.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gavin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
