stevedlawrence commented on a change in pull request #12: Revised daffodil-io
module to require passing in a FormatInfo object.
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/12#discussion_r158040195
##########
File path:
daffodil-runtime1/src/main/scala/edu/illinois/ncsa/daffodil/processors/RuntimeData.scala
##########
@@ -183,9 +191,126 @@ sealed abstract class TermRuntimeData(
optIgnoreCase
maybeFillByteEv
tunable
+ maybeCheckByteAndBitOrderEv
+ maybeCheckBitOrderAndCharsetEv
}
@throws(classOf[java.io.IOException])
final private def writeObject(out: java.io.ObjectOutputStream): Unit =
serializeObject(out)
+
+ final def checkParseBitOrder(pstate: PState) = {
+ //
+ // TODO: This looks like a lot of overhead for every single parse call.
+ //
+ // We need to check for bitOrder change. If it is changing, we
+ // need to know if it is on a proper byte boundary.
+ //
+ val dis = pstate.dataInputStream.asInstanceOf[ByteBufferDataInputStream]
+ val isChanging = isParseBitOrderChanging(dis, pstate)
+ if (isChanging && !dis.isAligned(8))
+ pstate.SDE("Can only change dfdl:bitOrder on a byte boundary. Bit pos
(1b) was %s.", dis.bitPos1b)
+ }
+
+ private def isParseBitOrderChanging(dis: ByteBufferDataInputStream, pstate:
PState): Boolean = {
+ pstate.processor.context match {
+ case ntrd: NonTermRuntimeData => false
+ case _ => {
+ val priorBitOrder = dis.st.priorBitOrder
+ val newBitOrder = pstate.bitOrder
+ if (priorBitOrder eq newBitOrder) false
+ else {
+ //
+ // the bit order is changing. Let's be sure
+ // that it's legal to do so w.r.t. other properties
+ // These checks will have been evaluated at compile time if
+ // all the properties are static, so this is really just
+ // in case the charset or byteOrder are runtime-valued.
+ //
+ pstate.processor.context match {
+ case trd: TermRuntimeData => {
+ val mcboc = trd.maybeCheckBitOrderAndCharsetEv
+ val mcbbo = trd.maybeCheckByteAndBitOrderEv
+ if (mcboc.isDefined) mcboc.get.evaluate(pstate) // Expressions
must be evaluated on the element, not before it is created.
+ if (mcbbo.isDefined) mcbbo.get.evaluate(pstate)
+ }
+ case _ => // ok
+ }
+
+ dis.st.setPriorBitOrder(newBitOrder)
+ true
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ final def checkUnparseBitOrder(ustate: UState) = {
+ //
+ // Check for bitOrder change. If yes, then unless we know we're byte
aligned
+ // we must split the DOS until we find out. That way the new buffered DOS
+ // can be assumed to be byte aligned (which will be checked on combining),
+ // and the bytes in it will actually start out byte aligned.
+ //
+ val dos =
ustate.dataOutputStream.asInstanceOf[DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream]
+ val isChanging = isUnparseBitOrderChanging(dos, ustate)
+ splitOnBitOrderChange(dos, ustate, isChanging)
+ }
+
+ private def isUnparseBitOrderChanging(dos: DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream,
ustate: UState): Boolean = {
+ ustate.processor.context match {
+ case ntrd: NonTermRuntimeData => false
+ case _ => {
+ val priorBitOrder = dos.priorBitOrder
+ val newBitOrder = ustate.bitOrder
+ if (priorBitOrder eq newBitOrder) false
+ else {
+ //
+ // the bit order is changing. Let's be sure
+ // that it's legal to do so w.r.t. other properties
+ // These checks will have been evaluated at compile time if
+ // all the properties are static, so this is really just
+ // in case the charset or byteOrder are runtime-valued.
+ //
+ ustate.processor.context match {
+ case trd: TermRuntimeData => {
+ val mcboc = trd.maybeCheckBitOrderAndCharsetEv
+ val mcbbo = trd.maybeCheckByteAndBitOrderEv
+ if (mcboc.isDefined) mcboc.get.evaluate(ustate)
+ if (mcbbo.isDefined) mcbbo.get.evaluate(ustate)
+ }
+ case _ => // ok
+ }
Review comment:
Same comment as above, can this be moved into the above check function?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
