It's not a bad idea, given the current SDO API. But, let me tell you the
direction that the spec seems to be headed with Sequences. There is
currently a proposal to deprecate the getSequence(String),
getSequence(int) and getSequence(Property) methods. The feeling is that
getSequence(), which returns the mixed-content will be the only SDO
Sequence API. If that goes through, then we would need to either a) say
that SDO doesn't provide support for the things that EMF uses FeatureMap
(Sequence) properties for, or b) we need to provide methods somewhere (in
maybe XSDHelper) to access the required information.
Assuming option b is necessary, maybe your suggestion could be handled
with a method on XSDHelper that returns the substitution property - for
example:
DataObject myObject = ...
Property substitution = XSDHelper.INSTANCE.getSubstitionProperty(myObject,
myObject.getProperty("implementation"));
Thoughts? Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue?
Frank.
"Yang ZHONG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/21/2006 12:05:06
PM:
> I'm a fan of not only richness, but also simpleness.
>
> Let me refine my proposal a little bit not to break the simpleness of
the
> Programming Model.
>
> We can still return normal type for get/set( "implementation") for users
> don't care substitution element instance and keep the simple PM.
> At the same time, we can make getSequence( "implementation") to return a
> Sequence for users to set/get substitution element instance.
>
> The new proposal won't change the spec a lot except for the new
> feature/support appending.
>
>
> On 6/21/06, Yang ZHONG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sequence is the only public API today to SET substitution element
> > instance and GET the substitution element instance.
> >
> > I am proposing mapping substituted property to Sequence, e.g.
> > "implementation" property returns Sequence INSTEAD OF a normal type.
> >
> > If we can do that, SDO users are enabled to set and get substitution
> > element instance which can't be done today.
> > After we do that, we can hide/discard "implementationGroup" or just
> > delegate "implementation" to "implementationGroup".
> > I guess the proposal needs to change the spec, unfortunately.
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely
> >
> > Yang ZHONG
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely
>
> Yang ZHONG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
