Frank,

 That would be great. I'll open a low priority JIRA to track it.

Brent


On 7/26/06, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brent. It would be trivial to add such a method in SDOUtil, if you really
need it.

Frank.

"Brent Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/26/2006 12:20:40 PM:

> Frank, any comment on this? Is this something you would be willing to
> provide in SDOUtil?
>
> Brent
>
> On 7/20/06, Brent Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Traversing from the Types we have to figure out the Types we don't
> > have seems a lot harder than having a utility in SDO that tells us all
> > of the Types for a URI. But, yes, that's possible.
> >
> > Brent
> >
> > On 7/20/06, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If we have Customer then don't we also have the related Order and
> > > Address Types?
> > >
> > > Brent Daniel wrote:
> > >
> > > > This would disallow the scenario where you have a static model
with
> > > > customers, address, and orders,  read some customers and
addresses,
> > > > and then want to create a new order and associate it with a
customer.
> > > > At least, you wouldn't be able to create it off the dynamic root.
> > > >
> > > > Brent
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/20/06, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I ran this by Steve Brodsky and he suggested that we might
bebetter off
> > > >> looking up the needed Types from the TypeHelper by the name as
needed
> > > >> rather than asking for all types associated with the URI.  We can
use
> > > >> the names we retrieve from ResultSetMetadata and it seems
> like this will
> > > >> simplify the code a bit since the processing for Static Type
scenarios
> > > >> can be nearly identical to the Dynamic Type scenarios.  The
'aliasing'
> > > >> mechanism should still work too.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> --Kevin
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Brent Daniel wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Is there a way that I'm missing to retrieve all of the SDO
Types
> > > >> > associated with a certain URI? We're doing this today in the
DAS by
> > > >> > diving down to EPackage, but would prefer having some sort of
utility
> > > >> > to do this in SDO.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Perhaps this is something that should be considered for
TypeHelper in
> > > >> > a future version of the spec?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Brent
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to