Hi, I am not sure I am very clear about the suggestions:
1) How to implement jn:keys by using jdm:keys? 2) I am not sure if it's possible to implement everything inside jn:keys because it "returns all keys of all objects in the supplied sequence" while jdm:keys returns all keys only in a single object. Please kindly help. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Riyafa On 3 July 2016 at 03:02, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Riyafa, > > the change looks good, I've added just one comment. > > On the question of jdm:keys vs. js:keys the specification says in [4]: > > The XQuery data model uses accessors to explain the data model. Accessors > are > not exposed to the user and are only used for convenience in this > specification. Objects have the following accessors: jdm:keys [...] > > So jdm:keys is not supposed to be accessible to the user. Now I think there > are 2 things that we could do: > 1) have both the jdm:keys accessor and the jn:keys function and implement > jn:keys by using jdm:keys or > 2) just implement everything inside of the jn:keys evaluator. > > Does this make sense? > > Cheers, > Till > > [4] > http://jsoniq.org/docs/JSONiqExtensionToXQuery/html-single/index.html#idm139680641300880 > > > On 2 Jul 2016, at 1:24, Riyafa Abdul Hameed wrote: > > Hi, >> >> I have created a PR with the suggested changes[1] except for the 3rd >> suggestions. The implementation of jdm:keys is based on [2] and jn:keys is >> based on [3]. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/vxquery/pull/80 >> [2] >> >> http://jsoniq.org/docs/JSONiqExtensionToXQuery/html-single/index.html#idm139680641300880 >> [3] >> >> http://jsoniq.org/docs/JSONiqExtensionToXQuery/html-single/index.html#idm139680622840960 >> >> Thank you. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> Riyafa >> >> On 2 July 2016 at 00:33, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> it’s really great to see the object navigation. This is really nice >>> progress! >>> >>> Looking at the commits I saw a few things that don’t seem to be quite >>> right. >>> Could you take a look if those can be fixed? >>> >>> 1) The return type for jn:null is specified to be xs:string*, that seems >>> wrong. >>> 2) The return type jdm:keys is specified to be item(), that seems wrong >>> as >>> well. >>> 3) There’s a lot of overlap between jdm:keys and jn:keys. Do we actually >>> need jdm:keys? >>> 4) A number of the new tests don’t have a new-line at the end of the >>> file. >>> Could we add those? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Till >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Riyafa Abdul Hameed >> Undergraduate, University of Moratuwa >> >> Email: [email protected] >> Website: https://riyafa.wordpress.com/ <http://riyafa.wordpress.com/> >> <http://facebook.com/riyafa.ahf> <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/riyafa> >> <http://twitter.com/Riyafa1> >> > -- Riyafa Abdul Hameed Undergraduate, University of Moratuwa Email: [email protected] Website: https://riyafa.wordpress.com/ <http://riyafa.wordpress.com/> <http://facebook.com/riyafa.ahf> <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/riyafa> <http://twitter.com/Riyafa1>
