Hi, I have applied 1368 and 1374. This patch gets conflicts with the patches I've applied. They looked reasonably straight forward to resolve but I must have done something wrong as the sdo tests crash :-(
Could you do an extract from HEAD and create a new patch for this Jira? Cheers, On 25/08/07, Michael Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I uploaded a patch for TUSCANY-1370. If someone could review and apply > it that would be great. > > Michael > Rogue Wave Software, Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Developer - > HydraSDO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Yoder (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 5:22 PM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: [jira] Updated: (TUSCANY-1370) C++ SDO spec > compliance/portability: DataObject > > > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1370?page=com.atlassian.ji > ra.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] > > Michael Yoder updated TUSCANY-1370: > ----------------------------------- > > Attachment: TUSCANY-1370.txt > > This patch removes off-spec member functions from the DataObject > interface. > > > > C++ SDO spec compliance/portability: DataObject > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Key: TUSCANY-1370 > > URL: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1370 > > Project: Tuscany > > Issue Type: Bug > > Components: C++ SDO, C++ Specification > > Affects Versions: Cpp-M3 > > Environment: API issues -- all platforms > > Reporter: Michael Yoder > > Fix For: Cpp-Next > > > > Attachments: TUSCANY-1370.txt > > > > > > The specification interface DataObject.h exposes off-spec member > functions, these should be made internal to the implementation. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Yoder > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:34 PM > > To: 'tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org' > > Subject: C++ SDO spec compliance/portability: DataObject Hi, In the > > DataObject interface, these member functions are exposed which aren't > in the C++ 2.1 spec: > > virtual SDO_API bool hasProperty(const char* name) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API bool hasProperty(const SDOString& name) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API DataFactory* getDataFactory() = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void setUserData(const char* path,void* value) = > 0; > > virtual SDO_API void setUserData(const SDOString& path, void* > value) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void setUserData(unsigned int propertyIndex, void* > value) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void setUserData(const Property& property, void* > value) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void setUserData(void* value) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void* getUserData(const char* path) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void* getUserData(const SDOString& path) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void* getUserData(unsigned int propertyIndex) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void* getUserData(const Property& property) = 0; > > virtual SDO_API void* getUserData() = 0; > > virtual SDO_SPI const char* objectToXPath() = 0; Would it be > > appropriate to file a Jira/patch to have these removed from the spec > interface? Or alternatively a Jira to submit them to the spec committee? > > Thanks, > > Michael Yoder > > Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Developer - > > HydraSDO > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > - > You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > -- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
