Hi Sérgio,
Thanks for the patch. Looks like it does the job. BTW Can you please
attach the patch as a JIRA issue at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa (Note that
project is Axis2/C). Because it is the tradition way of proposing a
patch in Apache and i can refer it at the commit of the patch.
And development related discussion are really welcomed to do in
axis2-dev list ('cc'ed)
Thanks
Dimuthu
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Sérgio Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, I've finished a first version of the patch for your
> evaluation. This adds support for a more "C-like" handling of
> string-type enumerations, by allowing values to be read and written
> with a native enum structure.
>
> Summary of changes:
>
> src/org/apache/axis2/schema/writer/CStructWriter.java:
> - Capitalize and normalize (i.e., remove invalid characters) the "id"
> property in enumFacet tags
>
> src/org/apache/axis2/schema/template/CADBBeanTemplateHeader.xsl:
> - Generate enum declaration
> - Generate declarations for specialized enum getter and setter
>
> src/org/apache/axis2/schema/template/CADBBeanTemplateSource.xsl
> - Generate specialized getter and setter; the data is still stored in
> string format, these functions simply convert back and forth
>
> I'll be happy to hear your comments!
>
> Cheers,
> Sérgio
>
> ---
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Dimuthu Gamage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yea you are right, For enumeration mostly the base type is a string. I
> > wrote that schema part just to show you that you can handle the
> > enumeration detection from the xslt.
> >
> > BTW I think I was wrong with the idea later one is better. It still
> > make more sense, but thinking about the factors I think we better go
> > with the 1st one.
> >
> > backward compatibility - as you suggested.
> > strings have to be converted to a particular format to set them as
> > members of an enum ( like capitalizing, removing spaces and other
> > characters with underscores),
> >
> > So I think still there can be users who like to use the old API ( I
> > mean just getters/setters for string), So it is better to keep them
> > and add set_param_enum/get_param_enum functions separately.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Dimuthu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Sérgio Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Dimuthu,
> > >
> > > Actually, the enumeration is defined as follows:
> > >
> > >
> > > <simpleType name="DayOfWeek" >
> > > <restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > <enumeration value="Monday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Tuesday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Wednesday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Thursday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Friday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Saturday"/>
> > > <enumeration value="Sunday"/>
> > > </restriction>
> > > </simpleType>
> > >
> > > Note the string base for the restriction. I guess it's what makes
> > > sense and it is indeed consistent with what I've seen in other places,
> > > since if you're defining string values, you'd expect the restriction
> > > to be for them to be strings.
> > >
> > > This generates the following intermediate XML, however:
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > <class caps-name="DAYOFWEEK" name="DayOfWeek" nsprefix="ns1"
> > > nsuri="https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/v11";
> > > originalName="DayOfWeek" simple="yes" unwrapped="yes">
> > > <property caps-cname="DAYOFWEEK" caps-type="AXIS2_CHAR_T*"
> > > cname="DayOfWeek" minOccurs="1" name="DayOfWeek" notattribute="yes"
> > > nsuri="https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/v11";
> > > originalName="DayOfWeek" prefix="" restrictionBaseType="yes"
> > > shorttypename="string" simple="yes" type="axis2_char_t*">
> > > <enumFacet id="Monday" value="Monday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Tuesday" value="Tuesday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Wednesday" value="Wednesday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Thursday" value="Thursday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Friday" value="Friday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Saturday" value="Saturday"/>
> > > <enumFacet id="Sunday" value="Sunday"/>
> > > </property>
> > > </class>
> > >
> > > As you see, all the types are string-oriented here, which will affect
> > > the code for the whole class, causing it to store the property as a
> > > string:
> > >
> > > struct adb_DayOfWeek
> > > {
> > > axutil_qname_t* qname;
> > > axis2_char_t* property_DayOfWeek;
> > > axis2_bool_t is_valid_DayOfWeek;
> > > };
> > >
> > > So in order to make enumerations store their properties as ints, I
> > > guess I'd have to somehow smartly detect enumerations and handle them
> > > as a special case in the intermediate XML generation code, or
> > > otherwise fill the entire stylesheet with checks. The only other
> > > option is to store the property as a string and do the string <-> int
> > > conversion I had mentioned in my previous post (either via specialized
> > > extra getters/setters for enums, or by recognizing an enum and
> > > changing the code for its default setters/getters).
> > >
> > > I'm leaning towards the latter option (with modified default
> > > getters/setters), but would be willing to do the former if you think
> > > it makes more sense.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Sérgio
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Dimuthu Gamage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Hi Sérgio,
> > > >
> > > > See my inline comments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Sérgio Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Dimuthu,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm developing the patch right now (I'm now able to generate the
> enum
> > > > > declaration) and I found that I have two options to proceed:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 - Add specialized getters/setters for enumerations, while
> keeping
> > > > > the base type as a string. They would be named something like
> > > > > adb_<property>_get_<property>_enum and
> > > > > adb_<property>_set_<property>_enum. I'd have to do the conversion
> > > > > between the C enum struct and the stored string within the
> function
> > > > > (basically with a big if/else chain). This solution would
> preserve
> > > > > backwards compatibility and wouldn't require any changes to the
> java
> > > > > code, just XSL changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 - Completely change support for enumerations, by storing them
> as int
> > > > > and changing the setters/getters to use the C enum structure
> instead.
> > > > > This would break backwards compatibility and require java writer
> > > > > changes (not exactly sure which files), but would be much more
> elegant
> > > > > in terms of generated C code.
> > > >
> > > > I think I prefer this approach. Although this break the backward
> > > > compatibility, this is the most elegant way to do it in C.
> > > > And in fact this too doesn't require to change any of the java code,
> > > > you will be able to handle it in xslt itself. That is the java
> writer
> > > > will give us an intermediate xml which is something like this for
> that
> > > > adb object corresponding to the a type like this.
> > > >
> > > > <xs:simpleType name="derivedType">
> > > > <xs:restriction base="xs:int">
> > > > <xs:enumeration value="test1"/>
> > > > <xs:enumeration value="test2"/>
> > > > </xs:restriction>
> > > > </xs:simpleType>
> > > >
> > > > <class caps-name="DERIVEDTYPE" name="derivedType" nsprefix="ns1"
> > > > nsuri="http://wso2.org/dyn/codegen/demo"; originalName="derivedType"
> > > > simple="yes" unwrapped="yes">
> > > > <property caps-cname="DERIVEDTYPE" caps-type="INT"
> > > > cname="derivedType" minOccurs="1" name="derivedType"
> > > > notattribute="yes" nsuri="http://wso2.org/dyn/codegen/demo";
> > > > originalName="derivedType" prefix="" p
> > > > rimitive="yes" restrictionBaseType="yes" shorttypename="int"
> > > > simple="yes" type="int">
> > > > <enumFacet id="test1" value="test1"/><enumFacet id="test2"
> > > > value="test2"/>
> > > > </property>
> > > > </class>
> > > >
> > > > There you can check whether the enumFacet element exists and if so
> > > > change the method signature and the logic of the getters/setters
> > > > itself from the xslt itself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Dimuthu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you got any thoughts on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Sérgio
> > > > >
> > > > > PS - I switched to my work email, that will make things easier
> for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Sérgio Gomes <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Dimuthu,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for getting back to me. I'll give that patch a try
> next week,
> > > > > > I'll let you know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Sérgio
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Dimuthu Gamage <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Sérgio,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yea, you are correct on this. We should be able to declare
> them in an
> > > > > > > enum to provide interger constants in the API. It should
> be trivial.
> > > > > > > Why not you try that and propose a patch?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you like to try you have to checkout the axis2/java
> source code
> > > > > > > from
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis2/trunk/java
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and you may need to edit following files
> > > > > > > c adb templates from
> > > > > > > modules/adb-codegen/src/org/apache/axis2/schema/template/
> in the
> > > > > > > source tree
> > > > > > > c adb writer class from
> > > > > > >
> modules/adb-codegen/src/org/apache/axis2/schema/writer/CStructWriter.java
> > > > > > > in the source tree
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Dimuthu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Sérgio Gomes <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet another possible code generator issue. There's an
> enumeration in
> > > > > > > > the WSDL I'm using:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <simpleType name="DayOfWeek" >
> > > > > > > > <restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Monday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Tuesday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Wednesday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Thursday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Friday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Saturday"/>
> > > > > > > > <enumeration value="Sunday"/>
> > > > > > > > </restriction>
> > > > > > > > </simpleType>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And the setter that gets generated for it is:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > axis2_status_t AXIS2_CALL
> > > > > > > > adb_DayOfWeek_set_DayOfWeek(
> > > > > > > > adb_DayOfWeek_t* _DayOfWeek,
> > > > > > > > const axutil_env_t *env,
> > > > > > > > const axis2_char_t* arg_DayOfWeek);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The setter is referencing a structure of the same type,
> so how can I
> > > > > > > > create, say, a "Monday" object? Shouldn't the setter be
> receiving
> > > > > > > > something like an integer instead, which you could get
> from a C enum
> > > > > > > > with the several options?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Sérgio
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > 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]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
