Hi Francesco, I was about to start with metadata serialization on server side so I will perform the changes on master and you can merge them when you are ready.
About introducing an AbstractEdmEnumTypeImpl. Yes why not. Best Regards, Christian -----Original Message----- From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Montag, 3. März 2014 10:20 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress On 03/03/2014 09:52, Amend, Christian wrote: > Hi Francesco, > > 1. yes. getMetadata should be deleted. Fine: shall I take this on the olingo169 branch or instead can you make it on master (and I will later merge)? > 2. We use the EdmEntitySetInfo to build the ServiceDocument. So we used this > method to get the URI. Might also be a candidate to be deleted. Same as above. > 3. Without arguments is fine by me. Same as above. > I was thinking that the whole EdmServiceMetadata interface is unnecessary. We > should provide access to all entity sets, function imports and singletons at > the Edm interface directly. +1 (even though I have already implemented client-side). What about > I am finding many similarities between server's EdmEnumImpl and client's > EdmEnumTypeImpl: is it fine to you to introduce AbstractEdmEnumTypeImpl > in commons-core? (and so on, for all other Edm interfaces implementations). ? Regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Montag, 3. März 2014 08:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress > > Hi all, > a quick update. > > I am currently implementing, as suggested below, the current set of > commons-api Edm interfaces on client side, in the same way they are > implemented on server side, e.g. on top of another whole set of classes: > for example > > org.apache.olingo.odata4.server.core.edm.provider.EdmEnumImpl > > implements > > org.apache.olingo.odata4.commons.api.edm.EdmEnumType > > by delegating to an > > org.apache.olingo.odata4.server.api.edm.provider.EnumType > > server object which contains the actual information about the enum type; > in the same fashion > > org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.core.edm.EdmEnumTypeImpl > > is implementing the same EdmEnumType above by delegating to an > > org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.xml.EnumType > > client interface, whose concrete instances (different for V3 and V4) are > actually constructed by the Jackson XML parser. > > At the end of this process I should be able to obtain what discussed > below, hence I am fine. > I am finding many similarities between server's EdmEnumImpl and client's > EdmEnumTypeImpl: is it fine to you to introduce AbstractEdmEnumTypeImpl > in commons-core? (and so on, for all other Edm interfaces implementions). > > Besides this, I will also remove usage of client-side EdmType and > EdmSimpleType classes with the commons EdmType hierarchy. > > I am going to open two subtasks of OLINGO-169 in JIRA for these. > > Few questions I have after looking closely to Edm interfaces: > > 1. Does EdmServiceMetadata#getMetadata (which returns an InputStream > containing the metadata document) make sense on client side? I'd say no, > since client code actually *builds* an EdmServiceMetadata from an > InputStream. > Shall we remove such method from common interface? > > 2. What is EdmEntitySetInfo#getEntitySetUri expected to provide? Isn't > the external URI of an EntitySet provided by the service document (and > only for entity sets with 'IncludeInServiceDocument' set to true)? > > 3. Does Edm#getEntityContainer(FullQualifiedName) make sense? CSDL > specification (at the beginning of chapter 13) says: "Each metadata > document used to describe an OData service MUST define exactly one > entity container." > I would have expected Edm#getEntityContainer (e.g. without arguments). > > Regards. > > On 28/02/2014 09:09, Klevenz, Stephan wrote: >> Sorry for responding late. >> >> I am not sure if there is still a problem with using edm interfaces from >> commons. I can share [1] of OData 2.0 library which has a deserializer for >> metadata and which returns an interface. >> >> Setters in the interface not necessary. They are required for >> implementation only. The implementation in [1] is stax based and with that >> I currently don not see issues with cyclic element dependencies. >> >> If there is a need to change the edm interface so that a client can better >> deal with it, just make a proposal. We will then cross check for the >> server case and if there is no issue ... just do it. >> >> Regards, >> Stephan >> >> >> [1] >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata2.git;a=blo >> b;f=odata2-lib/odata-core/src/main/java/org/apache/olingo/odata2/core/ep/co >> nsumer/XmlMetadataConsumer.java;h=e8677a1112aa319d9b12fa615b39015e63fce1d2; >> hb=HEAD >> >> >> On 26.02.14 17:05, "Challen He" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> For (1), yes, I agree (the new work is to re-use ODataJClient parser, and >>> then convert *"old" ODataJClient Edm interfaces* result --> *Olingo 4 >>> common Edm interfaces* result) >>> About (2), I think so, unifying Edm interfaces is one of the goals of >>> moving to ASF, and the resulted Edm interfaces should be 'strong typed' >>> rather than 'weak typed' model. (we can take a look at and prioritize all >>> tasks for better plan & schedule) >>> >>> Thanks,-Challen >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: 2014年2月26日 23:45 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress >>> >>> Hi Challen, >>> thanks for your suggestions: I was actually more willing to check >>> >>> (1) whether my understanding, e.g. the concept difference between "old" >>> ODataJClient Edm interfaces and Olingo 4 common Edm interfaces, is correct >>> (2) if so, whether it is immediately necessary to change the client XML >>> Metadata parser accordingly: being not a trivial task, I want to be sure >>> it is needed before committing to it >>> >>> Hope this clarifies. >>> Regards. >>> >>> On 26/02/2014 16:33, Challen He wrote: >>>> Hi Francesco, >>>> >>>> I think cross/circle reference in Edm is inevitable: not only >>>> EntityContainer but also EntityType itself may refer to EntityType, e.g. >>>> entity type 'Employee' has a property of 'Manager' type, and 'Manager' >>>> type itself contains a collection of 'Employee'. So the job of figuring >>>> out their relationships will be taken by user /client / server code if >>>> common doesn't do it. >>>> >>>> A 2-phased solution is: phase1 - parse CSDL xml doc into a set of >>>> intermediate csdl objects (they only have weak reference like the >>>> mentioned String field named 'entityType'), phase2 - use csdl objects to >>>> first build all edm type objects (EdmComplexType, EdmEntityType, >>>> EdmEnumType..., need to handle circle references among them), then these >>>> edm type objects are used to build >>>> EntitySet/Container/function/action/annotation term... >>>> >>>> I think we can start with the assumption of no circle reference and >>>> later add support for it, but in the design it looks ok for all Edm >>>> interface definitions to have 'strong type' references like >>>> 'EdmEntitySet' -> 'EdmEntityType', or 'EdmEntityType' -> another >>>> 'EdmEntityType' ... >>>> >>>> (though I am not 100% sure but personally I think entity interfaces >>>> with getter only will work, considering that they will be created by >>>> factory/builder) >>>> >>>> Thanks,-Challen >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: 2014年2月26日 19:14 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I have spent some more time in comparing the commons-api Edm interfaces >>>> and their client-api counterparts and I am going to try to explain >>>> better my concerns. >>>> >>>> Let's take again the sample below: >>>> >>>> <EntitySet Name="Products" EntityType="ODataDemo.Product"> >>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding >>>> Path="ODataDemo.FeaturedProduct/Advertisement" Target="Advertisements"/> >>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="Categories" Target="Categories"/> >>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="Supplier" Target="Suppliers"/> >>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="ProductDetail" >>>> Target="ProductDetails"/> >>>> </EntitySet> >>>> >>>> Currently, the way odata4-client-core works will barely translate this >>>> piece of information from XML to Java object(s), where an instance of >>>> EntitySetImpl - implementation of EntitySet [9] - has a String field >>>> named 'entityType' with value 'ODataDemo.Product'. >>>> >>>> If you take a look at EdmEntitySet [10] instead, this interface >>>> supposes that an EdmEntitySetImpl will have an EdmEntityType field named >>>> 'entityType', whose value is a reference to an EdmEntityTypeImpl >>>> instance for ODataDemo.Product. >>>> >>>> This fact implies that the metadata XML parser will need, when >>>> encountering the XML attribute >>>> >>>> EntityType="ODataDemo.Product" >>>> >>>> to look at EdmEntityTypeImpl instances built so far during parsing and >>>> associate the one with name 'ODataDemo.Product' to the EdmEntitySetImpl >>>> under construction. >>>> All that where potentially ODataDemo.Product could be not defined in >>>> the current metadata document but in one of referenced metadata >>>> documents. >>>> >>>> As you can see, this is a *huge* difference: consider, for example, >>>> that the instances to link to the one under construction could not even >>>> be built yet - see the NavigationPropertyBinding's target above, where >>>> "Categories" could be an EntitySet or a Singleton not yet encountered in >>>> the XML document being parsed. >>>> >>>> Before starting this considerable change effort, I'd like to understand >>>> if I am right in the finding above and also if you think it is worth to >>>> change the way how the client metadata XML parser currently works. >>>> If I am right, in fact, we need either to give up on making the effort >>>> to use the same Edm interfaces client- and server-side or the change >>>> described above must be implemented. >>>> >>>> Another minor issue I have with commons-api Edm interfaces is that they >>>> mostly lack setter methods: is it fine to introduce them? It will make >>>> the XML parser work a little less hard. >>>> >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> On 25/02/2014 17:16, Amend, Christian wrote: >>>>> 1. Yes using the EdmType hierarchy should work just fine. I Am not >>>>> quite sure what you mean by parsing type expressions. Do you mean that >>>>> you have a Java String and would like to have an EdmPrimitiveType for >>>>> this? >>>>> >>>>> 2. I see your concern. We had a similar question with V2 when we tried >>>>> to implement a client. We could delete these info objects but would >>>>> then have to provide methods like getEntitySets() (returning a list of >>>>> EdmEntitySets) at the EDM directly. Otherwise how would a client access >>>>> the entity sets without knowing their name first. >>>>> >>>>> 2.) b+c) then lets move the V3 interfaces into commons. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2014 16:10 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress >>>>> >>>>> On 25/02/2014 14:38, Amend, Christian wrote: >>>>>> Hi Francesco, >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I don`t quite understand where your concern is there. Could you >>>>>> please clarify? >>>>> Let's put it differently: is there already something for parsing type >>>>> expressions? >>>>> Moreover: is there already something to represent types? I guess that >>>>> EdmType[8]'s hierarchy should fit the job, right? In this case I >>>>> should be able to remove [1][2][3][4][5] and use EdmType descendants. >>>>> >>>>>> 2.) >>>>>> a) The info interfaces are there because there was no way to get a >>>>>> list of all entity sets inside the edm without knowing their name. >>>>>> Also this information is needed for the service document. >>>>> Ok: I am not sure whether the existing interfaces are suitable, from >>>>> a client perspective; consider that client will instantiate the Edm >>>>> interfaces' implementations by parsing the $metadata XML content. >>>>> As an example, please see how to represent something like as >>>>> >>>>> <EntitySet Name="Products" EntityType="ODataDemo.Product"> >>>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding >>>>> Path="ODataDemo.FeaturedProduct/Advertisement" >>>>> Target="Advertisements"/> >>>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="Categories" Target="Categories"/> >>>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="Supplier" Target="Suppliers"/> >>>>> <NavigationPropertyBinding Path="ProductDetail" >>>>> Target="ProductDetails"/> </EntitySet> >>>>> >>>>> With EntitySet [9] this will result in (please excuse the pseudo-JSON >>>>> representation): >>>>> >>>>> EntitySetImpl { >>>>> name: "Products", >>>>> entityType: "ODataDemo.Product", >>>>> includeInServiceDocument: true, >>>>> navigationPropertyBindings: [ >>>>> NavigationPropertyBindingImpl { >>>>> path: "ODataDemo.FeaturedProduct/Advertisement", >>>>> target: "Advertisements" >>>>> }, >>>>> ... >>>>> ] >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> i.e. this is more or less the translation of the XML snippet above. >>>>> >>>>> With EdmEntitySet [10] instead the representation is much more >>>>> involved, mostly because metadata is something that is to be built >>>>> and then pushed out as XML, rather than parsed from XML. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure I actually succeeded in expressing my concerns... >>>>> >>>>>> b) No I think the interfaces in [6] should cover all aspects of the >>>>>> EDM. If not this is functionality which has to be added. >>>>>> c) If they can coexist without causing conflicts I would put the V3 >>>>>> interfaces in the commons API. We might not support this on server >>>>>> side from the beginning but a later refactoring would be cumbersome >>>>>> IMHO. Although I am open for other opinions. >>>>> The current client Edm interfaces [7] are available for V3 and V4 >>>>> without conflicts, so there should be no problem on having them in >>>>> odata4-commons-api, without providing server implementations for V3's. >>>>> >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2014 14:06 >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> I have reached a fair stable point for merging ODataJClient's >>>>>> Metadata parsing into olingo-odata4 (in the 'olingo169' GIT branch): >>>>>> now metadata parsing works either for V3 and V4 (few unit tests have >>>>>> been added in olingo-odata4-client-core ). >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point I have two main concerns before considering the work >>>>>> for >>>>>> OLINGO-169 completed (and consequently merge olingo169 into master): >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. types >>>>>> >>>>>> EdmType [1] is an interface (with concrete implementations available >>>>>> for >>>>>> V3 and V4) whose main purpose is parsing type expressions (like as >>>>>> 'Collection(ODataDemo.Product)') into a meaningful representation, >>>>>> e.g. >>>>>> EdmSimpleType [2], EnumType [3], ComplexType [4] or EntityType [5] >>>>>> and also to provide other useful information (is this a collection? >>>>>> does it have a base type?). >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sure that this duplicates something else in odata-olingo4. but >>>>>> I need some guidance about how to replace [1][2][3][4][5]. Also, I >>>>>> suppose that a better location for such items is >>>>>> olingo-odata4-commons-api rather than olingo-odata4-client-api (where >>>>>> they reside ATM). >>>>>> Who would like to volunteer? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Edm interfaces >>>>>> >>>>>> olingo-odata4-commons-api holds in [6] the current set of Edm >>>>>> interfaces implemented server-side whilst I have temporarily put the >>>>>> set of Edm interfaces implemented client-side in >>>>>> olingo-odata4-client-api's [7] (and subpackages). >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, I need to understand how to reconcile and consolidate these >>>>>> two sets (into olingo-odata4-commons-api of course), but there are >>>>>> several aspects I don't understand: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) what is the purpose of *Info interfaces (like as >>>>>> EdmEntitySetInfo)? what's the usage difference with EdmEntitySet? >>>>>> (b) is the set from [6] still to be completed? >>>>>> (c) would it be fine to put in [6] the merge with all >>>>>> interfaces from [7], including V3's or is it better to keep V3's in >>>>>> olingo-odata4-client-api? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your support. >>>>>> Regards. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/edm/EdmType.java;h=5a480d72cbbc707696dd358e11746 >>>>>> 8 >>>>>> f0f87980fb;hb=olingo169 [2] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/data/EdmSimpleType.java;h=7d44c376e89b084c6e8563 >>>>>> c >>>>>> 63317012284278795;hb=olingo169 [3] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/edm/EnumType.java;h=614c5e1e85a731ae80de56899e7d >>>>>> 9 >>>>>> d82ae846bf0;hb=olingo169 [4] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/edm/ComplexType.java;h=929d1b83f4db4c290b0681b7d >>>>>> 6 >>>>>> 29b9d0545f33a5;hb=olingo169 [5] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/edm/EntityType.java;h=37ebc359f0ec36e439b3a8555e >>>>>> 2 >>>>>> 3ebaa84506c2e;hb=olingo169 [6] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=tree;f=odata4-lib/odata4-commons-api/src/main/java/org/apache/oli >>>>>> n >>>>>> go/odata4/commons/api/edm;h=5735ace09587887d86a9f09c9ffdcd624b97521f >>>>>> ; >>>>>> hb=olingo169 [7] >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.gi >>>>>> t >>>>>> ;a=tree;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olin >>>>>> g >>>>>> o/odata4/client/api/edm;h=31d1e59d5b76ba321b93bd68bda675522f9d1a8c;h >>>>>> b >>>>>> =olingo169 >>>>> [8] >>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git >>>>> ; >>>>> a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-commons-api/src/main/java/org/apache/oling >>>>> o >>>>> /odata4/commons/api/edm/EdmType.java;h=bee2fa5394774b4ea41a71ee433cf5 >>>>> d >>>>> 7366c961c;hb=olingo169 [9] >>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git >>>>> ; >>>>> a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-client-api/src/main/java/org/apache/olingo >>>>> / >>>>> odata4/client/api/edm/v4/EntitySet.java;h=703c0dfa3c23ea66ea88c8fb387 >>>>> 5 >>>>> f90962e3a800;hb=olingo169 [10] >>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-olingo-odata4.git >>>>> ; >>>>> a=blob;f=odata4-lib/odata4-commons-api/src/main/java/org/apache/oling >>>>> o >>>>> /odata4/commons/api/edm/EdmEntitySet.java;h=50dbe0590ff5aa32340eeee5d >>>>> 3 >>>>> 26844a92f0c91a;hb=olingo169 -- Francesco Chicchiriccò Tirasa - Open Source Excellence http://www.tirasa.net/ Involved at The Apache Software Foundation: member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PPMC http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
