The signature from spec 2.1 rc1 is getDataObject(unsigned int),
do we want to change the implementation accordingly?
On 12/15/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually we are wrong here. To replace the isMany() logic you need to
dob = sequence->getDataObject*Value*(i);
getDataObject returns the sequenced DO not the value at position *i*.
Cheers,
On 15/12/06, Yang ZHONG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends on implementation, e.g. Tuscany C++ get(property) delegates
to
> get(int), and Tuscany Java get(int) delegates to get(property)
>
> On 12/14/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > Pete Robbins wrote:
> > > On 14/12/06, Yang ZHONG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> if (seqProperty.isMany())
> > >> {
> > >> int index =
sequence->getListIndex(i);
> > >> dob =
> > >> dataObject->getList(seqProperty)[index];
> > >> }
> > >> else
> > >> {
> > >> dob =
> > >> dataObject->getDataObject(seqProperty);
> > >> }
> > >> might have an alternative:
> > >> dob = sequence->getDataObject(i)
> > >
> > >
> > > Correct. I recall making the same simplification in some code
> > recently...
> > > can't remember where though ;-) The code in CopyHelper and
> > > SDOXMLWriter use
> > > the longer method but I'm sure dob = sequence->getDataObject(i) will
> > > work.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> >
> > OK, Thanks! I had just blindly mirrored what I had seen in CopyHelper
> > for this :) This triggers another question: Is it more efficient to
> > access properties by index or by property object? In other words,
should
> > I do dob->getXyz(i) or dob->getXyz(property)?
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> > --
> >
> > Yang ZHONG
>
>
--
Pete
--
Yang ZHONG
