chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gross, Lukas" <>
Subject Re: ObjectiveCMIS updates complete
Date Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:00:31 GMT
Hi Gavin,

I implemented the suggested changes (new syntax and NSDateFormatter
caching). I also discussed 1) with Florian and he said that they had a
similar discussion when they implemented escaping for OpenCMIS and they
decided to go for the ‘?’ approach because it is easier to implement and
well known from JDBC implementations.

Best Regards,

PS: I will start the release this afternoon if there are no more comments
on my changes

On 21/07/14 01:04 pm, "Gavin Cornwell" <> wrote:

>Hi Lukas,
>I discussed 1) with Mike this morning and we don’t think it needs doing
>for the 0.4 release. In fact, as you point out, this is the approach used
>for Prepared statements and the OpenCMIS implementation is always our
>reference so if that’s the way it’s been implemented there too, let’s
>leave it as it is.
>It would be good to do the others though, I’m still used to the old way
>of doing things too, but I do agree that new code should be added using
>the new/modern syntax.
>On 18 Jul 2014, at 14:20, Gross, Lukas <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Mike has some valid points regarding the escaping implementation. Please
>> find my comments below.
>> 1- I used Œ?¹ as parameter token because I basically followed the
>> implementation. Furthermore this is a common pattern also in other
>> Prepared Statement implementations.
>> If I got you right you suggest to use {1} Š {n} parameters in the string
>> and then use rangeOf to find and replace them instead of parsing the
>> string character by character.
>> 2 - I will change this one
>> 3 - The new syntax is definitively nicer and I use it especially when
>> initializing large arrays or dictionaries. However I¹m still kind of
>> to writing old-fashioned code... but I can change this, if it makes you
>> sleep better :)
>> 4- I will  check this
>> Is 1) something we should consider changing before releasing 0.4? Is
>> everyone the same opinion as Mike? The current approach follows the
>> OpenCMIS implementation. Do we want to have something different here?
>> Regards,
>> Lukas
>> On 18/07/14 02:39 pm, "Gavin Cornwell" <>
>>> Hi,
>>> I raised and fixed to
>>> cover the category issue I mentioned in the status call earlier this
>>> I¹ve also committed an update to to use the version number
>>> defined in ObjectiveCMIS.xcconfig so we only have to change it in one
>>> place.
>>> I had a quick look at the query escaping changes, I don¹t have anything
>>> else to add over and above what Mike said.
>>> That completes all the changes we wanted to make for 0.4.
>>> Regards,
>>> Gavin

View raw message