Mailing-List: contact tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
  b=2On767aHLPNgXkc5U5sxEP4wuLMXo4SJwsNf9DXXZfOK1WXL9G4eceeh5IJ0LlzHROZzv8wbzvD7q6dpZp7EHGxeQ49SqJhn7/kRjwkQTz5ZhIl8Ith8JrmNHxCEnEAk8W1+vFm6qxMW7JNl6fsuRmx973GxM13ylIwJPeIpJo0=;
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:38:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Ron Gavlin <rgavlin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Problem w/SDO xsd:dateTime value being validated using EMF
 Diagnostician.validate()
To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <761409.12732.qm@web31311.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks for the reply, Frank.=0A=0AI believe in EMF SDO 1, loading a DataGra=
ph with an invalid xsd:dateTime value behaved much like loading a DataGraph=
 with an invalid xsd:integer. Here, xsd:dateTime fields were parsed into EM=
F XMLCalendar instances and therefore parsing errors were reported at load =
time. Tuscany SDO does not behave this way. Does the fact that the SDO spec=
 states that xsd:dateTime gets rendered as a String imply that parsing shou=
ld not be performed at load time and therefore invalid xsd:dateTime values =
ignored? =0A=0ADoes the SDO spec plan to address validation in a later revi=
sion? If Tuscany SDO were to support validation, do you think Tuscany would=
 roll its own validation, use the validation capabilities built-in to EMF, =
or use the EMFT Validation Framework? Would it be appropriate for me to cre=
ate a JIRA to document this enhancement request?=0A=0AI was thinking of wri=
ting a ModelValidator that is responsible for validating the types defined =
in ModelPackageImpl. It would delegate to EMF's DynamicEDataValidator for s=
ome types and implement custom validation for others like DateTime. In orde=
r to implement this capability, I would register the ModelPackageImpl and M=
odelValidator with the EMF EValidatorRegistry. Does this seem like a reason=
able approach? Where do you think it would make most sense to perform this =
registration? =0A=0A- Ron =0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Frank B=
udinsky <frankb@ca.ibm.com>=0ATo: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org=0ASent: Tuesda=
y, January 16, 2007 3:24:59 PM=0ASubject: Re: Problem w/SDO xsd:dateTime va=
lue being validated using EMF Diagnostician.validate()=0A=0A=0AI don't know=
 if it worked in SDO 1 either, but a big change in this area =0Ais that the=
 xsd types now map to commonj.sdo types as descirbed in the SDO =0A2 spec. =
In SDO 1, they mapped to types in the EMF XMLTypePackage. =0A=0AIn SDO 2 (T=
uscany), xsd:dateTime maps to this type (defined in =0AsdoModel.xsd):=0A=0A=
<xsd:simpleType name=3D"DateTime" sdoJava:instanceClass=3D"java.lang.String=
">=0A  <xsd:restriction base=3D"xsd:dateTime"/>=0A</xsd:simpleType>=0A=0AIt=
, along with all of the commonj types, is generated in class =0Aorg.apache.=
tuscany.sdo.model.impl.ModelFactoryImpl. I don't know how the =0AEMF valida=
tor will handle this type.=0A=0AFrank.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARon Gavlin <rgavlin@ya=
hoo.com> =0A01/16/2007 01:05 PM=0APlease respond to=0Atuscany-user@ws.apach=
e.org=0A=0A=0ATo=0Atuscany-user tuscany-user <tuscany-user@ws.apache.org>=
=0Acc=0A=0ASubject=0AProblem w/SDO xsd:dateTime value being validated using=
 EMF =0ADiagnostician.validate()=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AGreetings,=0A=0AI have=
 an xsd:dateTime child element in an XML Schema that I use to =0Astatically=
 generate Tuscany SDO classes. Since Tuscany does not currently =0Aprovide =
a schema validation API, I have been using EMF to accomplish this =0Atask u=
sing the following code:=0A=0A...=0ADiagnostic diagnostic =3D =0A   Diagnos=
tician.INSTANCE.validate((EObject) =0AmyDataObjectwithDateTimeChildProperty=
);=0Aif (diagnostic.getSeverity() =3D=3D Diagnostic.ERROR)=0A{=0A    throw =
new Exception(diagnostic.getChildren().toString());=0A}=0A=0AThis technique=
 works fine for most schema validation issues, like min/max =0Afacet length=
 enforcement for child xsd:strings, etc. However, EMF is =0Aperforming no v=
alidation against my Tuscany DateTime field (I can supply a =0Abogus dateTi=
me and no diagnostic error is generated). Is this an EMF =0Aproblem or a Tu=
scany/EMF integration problem? I thought this used to work =0Awith the Ecli=
pse EMF-based SDO 1.0 implementation but I may be wrong. Any =0Asuggestions=
 would be greatly appreciated.=0A=0AThanks in advance,=0A=0A- Ron=0A=0A----=
-----------------------------------------------------------------=0ATo unsu=
bscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org=0AFor additional co=
mmands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-------------=
--------------------------------------------------------=0ATo unsubscribe, =
e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org=0AFor additional commands, e=
-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org