Ok then I will go ahead and merge. I will let you know once it is finished.
-----Original Message----- From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Mittwoch, 12. März 2014 13:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Feedback for EdmEnhancements needed On 12/03/2014 12:58, Amend, Christian wrote: > Hi Francesco, > > thanks for your fast feedback! > > If there is any functionality you need from this branch I can merge this > status into master and start the real service document and metadata > implementation on a new branch. Otherwise I would finish the functionality > and then merge(two or three days maybe) The status right now is stable so > merging would not be an issue. If possible, I would prefer having the current olingo167 merged so that I can merge in turn from my branch olingo200 and work on the most updated client code. Regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Mittwoch, 12. März 2014 11:30 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Feedback for EdmEnhancements needed > > On 12/03/2014 11:05, Amend, Christian wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In the branch Olingo167 I started with service document and metadata >> serialization. To do that I had to make some enhancements to the Edm >> interfaces which also effected the client side implementation. To be sure I >> broke nothing I ran the tests and all were green but there are still some >> open questions for me: >> >> 1. I introduced the methods getBindingParameterTypeFqn and >> isBindingParameterTypeCollection at the EdmFunction interface. For V4 the >> parameter had no collection attribute. I changed this but this has to be >> filled during metadata parsing. I did not implement this now. Also this >> works for V4 but in the V3 proxy implementation I was not sure what to >> return if the method is called. I decided for null for now. Is this ok? > I have made some small changes in this respect for V4, to align > (Edm)Parameter with the rest. > V3 implementations look ok, V4 now works for isCollection() as well. > >> 2. I also implemented an EdmSchema interface both for client and server. If >> someone could give feedback if the client side looks ok I would be grateful. > Client-side it looks fine. > >> 3. I also introduced methods which return allEntitySets at the container. >> This works fine except I am not exactly sure I got it right for Actions and >> Functions in the V3 case. So I would need feedback here as well for the >> client side. > I think that for the moment your implementations look fine: if there is > any issue in this respect, we will see it as soon as the client request > / response handling will be fully merged (for V3) / completed (for V4). > > Are you going to merge back soon the olingo167 branch to master? > > Regards. -- 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/
