Hi Neeraj,
I didn't make myself clear in my earlier message. I agree with your
proposed init4List and init4Union. The "BIG CHANGE" means we can only have
init4List(XSSimpleTypeDecl itemDecl);
init4Union(XSSimpleTypeDecl [] memberDecls)
instead of
init4List(String itemUri, int itemIdx)
init4Union(String [] memberUri, int [] memberIdx)
because we only use object reference instead of index.
> How should we store built-in simpleType declaration in grammar ?
> I would like to do it separate in "SchemaNSGrammar" as i proposed but i
> didn't get any response on that.
I'm not sure about this one yet. I think we should stick to the current
implementation, and postpone the decision after we switch to the new
design. It's a minor implementation issue, and we can always change it
after the fact.
> we already have this method in DV class ,as they implement TypeValidator
> where it's defined.
Sorry, I forgot that there is already that method on TypeValidator. But we
still need one on XSSimpleTypeDecl, which will be called from
SchemaValidator.
Sandy Gao
Software Developer, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neeraj Bajaj
<Neeraj.Bajaj@ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun.COM> cc:
Subject: Re: [xerces2]simpletype redesign
2001-09-26
13:39
Please respond
to
xerces-j-dev
Hi Sandy,
> I hope you've noticed the "BIG CHANGE" happened last week. We've changed
> the way to refer to a component from namespace+declindex to object
> reference.
I didn't look much deeply into it, as i found certain things
yet to be implemented as per this change. I
thought a change in grammar is affecting XSSimpleTypeDecl and
why it should be related with grammar.I dont like XSSimpleTypeDecl
interacting with GrammarResolver also, that's why i said that this
component should be given required SimpleTypeDeclarations. and it will
be the job of traverser to provide right things.
> The interface of XSSimpleTypeDecl is quite different from that of
> DatatypeValidator. (And I believe it's for good reasons.) Have you put
any
> thought in how we can switch to this new design?
New simpleType design is good and i am more or less complete with
XSSimpleTypeDecl :) and other DV classes. I have gone ahead with
the changed signature of init4List(..) and init4Union(..) as posted,
Do we see any issues on that ?
I have given a thought about how this new simple type design will affect
SimpleTypeTraverser and the validation in SchemaValidator.
I was planning to put it across once i am finished with XSSimpleTypeDecl.
How should we store built-in simpleType declaration in grammar ?
I would like to do it separate in "SchemaNSGrammar" as i proposed but i
didn't get any response on that.
> And I'm thinking of add a method to compare two compiled values to
> XSSimpleTypeDecl and each DV class.
>
> - boolean isEqual(Object value1, Object value2);
we already have this method in DV class ,as they implement TypeValidator
where it's defined.
regards
Neeraj Bajaj
---------------------
Sun Microsystems, inc.
Ph.91-80-2298989 x87425.
>
> Neeraj Bajaj
> <Neeraj.Bajaj@ To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sun.COM> cc:
> Subject: [xerces2]simpletype
redesign
> 2001-09-26
> 10:48
> Please respond
> to
> xerces-j-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sandy & All,
>
> I wrote a mail yesterday but it hasn't made it to xerces
mailing
> list
> yet. I think problem was here and it has been solved, so this mail should
> reach :)
>
> I am thinking of removing dependency of XSSimpleTypeDecl from
> Grammar,once we achieve it, this will be an component which need not
know
> how
> Grammar works.
>
> 1. For List and union we are passing itemUri, itemIdx and
> arrays of memberUri and memberIdx respectively, which will help us
> to retrieve the required simpleType declarations from Grammar. It is
> creating
> dependency on the grammar.
>
> 2. This component should be provided with required simpleType
declarations.
> like,
> init4List(String itemUri, int itemIdx) --> init4List(XSSimpleTypeDecl
> decl)
>
> init4Union(String [] memberUri, int [] memberIdx) -->
> init4Union(XSSimpleTypeDecl []
memberDecls)
>
> 3. SimpleTypeTraverser will do the job of providing required
> simpleTypeDeclarations.
>
> 4. This will help us getting better performance during validation time,
as
> we
> are ready with required references and we dont have to get it from
grammar
> during validation.
>
> 5. Any issues on this, if i am missing any ?
>
> regards
>
> Neeraj Bajaj
> ---------------------
> Sun Microsystems, inc.
> Ph.91-80-2298989 x87425.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
