On 12/03/2014 12:58, Amend, Christian wrote:
Hi Francesco,
thanks for your fast feedback!
If there is any functionality you need from this branch I can merge this status
into master and start the real service document and metadata implementation on
a new branch. Otherwise I would finish the functionality and then merge(two or
three days maybe) The status right now is stable so merging would not be an
issue.
If possible, I would prefer having the current olingo167 merged so that
I can merge in turn from my branch olingo200 and work on the most
updated client code.
Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org]
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. März 2014 11:30
To: dev@olingo.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Feedback for EdmEnhancements needed
On 12/03/2014 11:05, Amend, Christian wrote:
Hi,
In the branch Olingo167 I started with service document and metadata
serialization. To do that I had to make some enhancements to the Edm interfaces
which also effected the client side implementation. To be sure I broke nothing
I ran the tests and all were green but there are still some open questions for
me:
1. I introduced the methods getBindingParameterTypeFqn and
isBindingParameterTypeCollection at the EdmFunction interface. For V4 the
parameter had no collection attribute. I changed this but this has to be filled
during metadata parsing. I did not implement this now. Also this works for V4
but in the V3 proxy implementation I was not sure what to return if the method
is called. I decided for null for now. Is this ok?
I have made some small changes in this respect for V4, to align
(Edm)Parameter with the rest.
V3 implementations look ok, V4 now works for isCollection() as well.
2. I also implemented an EdmSchema interface both for client and server. If
someone could give feedback if the client side looks ok I would be grateful.
Client-side it looks fine.
3. I also introduced methods which return allEntitySets at the container. This
works fine except I am not exactly sure I got it right for Actions and
Functions in the V3 case. So I would need feedback here as well for the client
side.
I think that for the moment your implementations look fine: if there is
any issue in this respect, we will see it as soon as the client request
/ response handling will be fully merged (for V3) / completed (for V4).
Are you going to merge back soon the olingo167 branch to master?
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PPMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
