My 2 cents On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: > Eddie's post provided motivation for me to actually write test cases :-) > > Here's a couple of things that the current impl may not do correctly: > > * There is serialization and deserialization available for the > ResultSpecification. A remote component may get this information (I didn't > check our impl to see if this is being sent now). However, the serialization > only supports the part of the result specification associated with no language > (or x-unspecified); language specific information is missing.
Result specs not sent to services. > > For the rest of this note, assume > typeXXX, typeZZZ subtype of typeXXX > typeXXX:featYYY is a feature introduced in the upper typeXXX, > and available (via inheritance of features) in the subtype > typeZZZ > > * The result specification may have typeXXX:featYYY. Since typeZZZ is a > subtype > of typeXXX, it contains (via inheritance) featYYY. So, it would seem that > containsFeature(typeYYY:FeatYYY) should return true. However it currently > returns false. It seems to me that it should return true, analogous to this > similar case involving just types: > > typeXXX in the result specification, > containsType(TypeZZZ) is true (because it's a subtype; this is how it is > working in the current impl). > > Other opinions? > > In the reverse direction: > typeZZZ:featYYY in result specification, > containsFeature(typeXXX:featYYY) returns false in the current impl. > > Is this correct? The argument for returning false would be that the result > specification is asking for featYYY on typeZZZ (and subtypes of it), but not > on > any supertypes of typeZZZ which have that feature. The argument for returning > true is that the feature is independent of how it is "spelled"; e.g., the > feature named typeXXX:featYYY is identical with the one named typeZZZ:featYYY. I'd opt for containsType(typeZZZ-FeatYY) being true and the reverse direction being false, but neither strongly enough to do anything about it :)
