Hi Pete, sounds good to me.
On 17/07/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Graham,
so if we move these methods to DataObjectImpl you should still be able
to use them by casting your DataObjectPtr to the impl? I think we
should do this in SDO HEAD along with the other 2.1 spec changes.
There should be only a small amount of rework required when you move
the PHP code up to use a 2.1 spec SDO.
Cheers,
On 17/07/07, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andy/Pete,
>
> Yes, we do use this method in the PHP SDO code - thanks for remembering us :-)
>
> I think we need to draw a distinction between SDO C++ for applications
> and SDO C++ as an embeddable library. The SDO C++ spec covers the
> former and therefore does not talk about get/setUserData. The library
> role of SDO C++ enables us to more easily write native SDO
> implementations for other languages (PHP, Ruby, etc...) and is IMO
> very important (I guess I would say that :-) ).
>
> Get/setUserData is used by SDO PHP to manage the relationship between
> the PHP SDO Objects and C++ SDO Objects. Earlier versions of the PHP
> Extension tried to manage this separately, but this solution was
> complex and prone to problems.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Graham.
>
>
> On 17/07/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andy, the static code generation was an old experiment and is not
> > used.I have been meaning to remove it for some time as it is confusing
> > being there.
> >
> > The get/setUserData was actually put in there at the request of the
> > PHP-SDO team. I'm not sure of the details but I think they use this to
> > maintain a correlation between the C++ SDO objects and PHP objects???
> > This code is not used anywhere within Tuscany SDO (or SCA) code.
> >
> > This may be a case where a real life application has shown up a
> > limitation in the spec and that we should take a proposal to the spec
> > group. I'll try and find out how essential this function is and if
> > there is another way to work around this to enable a spec compliant
> > api in Tuscany
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On 17/07/07, Andy Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm currently looking at some of the issues that my collegaue, Michael
> > > Yoder, raised regarding the use of propietary methods in the SDO header
> > > files. In particular, I'm looking at the setUserData / getUserData
> > > methods in DataObject.h [TUSCANY-1370]. These methods could easily be
> > > moved to the DataObjectImpl.h header instead. The methods are only
> > > referenced in code generated static client code (generated by
> > > DataFactoryImpl::generateInterface).
> > >
> > > However, I'm nervous about making the change because the current sdotest
> > > suite does not excercise the static code generated classes enough to
> > > call these methods. For instance, if I change the code generator to call
> > > a non-existant method "foo" instead of getUserData or setUserData then
> > > the current tests still pass.
> > >
> > > What is the status of the code generator? The Tuscany web site
> > > (http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sdo-cpp-faq.html) states that there
> > > are no plans to support this feature. Is this correct?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
--
Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
