Hi,
If I use jn:keys for object navigation instead of jdm:keys in [1], the
following would be correct:
*let $seq := ("foo", [ 1, 2, 3 ], { "a" : 1, "b" : 2 }, { "a" : 3, "c" : 4
})return $seq() *
and would return: *("a", "b", "c")*
But the jdm:keys only works for objects, hence only the following should be
correct:
*let $map := { "eyes" : "blue", "hair" : "fuchsia" }return $map()*
which should return: *("eyes", "hair")*
[1]
https://github.com/apache/vxquery/blob/master/vxquery-core/src/main/java/org/apache/vxquery/xmlquery/translator/XMLQueryTranslator.java#L1560
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Riyafa
On 4 July 2016 at 11:31, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Riyafa,
>
> responses are inline.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On 3 Jul 2016, at 5:02, Riyafa Abdul Hameed wrote:
>
> I am not sure I am very clear about the suggestions:
>>
>> 1) How to implement jn:keys by using jdm:keys?
>>
>
> One way to implement jn:keys($seq) would be to translate it to the JSONiq
> expression:
>
> distinct-values(
> for $item in $seq
> return
> typeswitch ($item)
> case $o as object() return jdm:keys($o)
> default return ()
> )
>
> This way we would only need a runtime for jdm:keys and could re-use
> existing functionality for everything else. However, since we are not very
> good at "optimizing away" all these intermediate expressions, there
> probably
> is some value in "natively" implementing the jn:keys function.
>
> 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.
>>
>
> It seems that your current implementation of jn:keys already does
> everything
> that is needed. The case where the input is a single object does exactly
> what
> the implementation of jdm:keys does. If the input is a sequence, then the
> keys
> are extracted from each object, duplicates are eliminated and the keys are
> returned.
>
> So I think that we would be ok, if we just removed jdm:keys from the code.
>
>
> 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>
>>
>
--
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>
