The SCA TC is starting to work on their
type mapping rules for C/C++ and is attempting to base it on the SDO mapping.
One of our Architects is on that TC (David Haney).
Bryan, has there been any revision to the C++ side of the 3.0 spec yet
to define previously undefined SDO to C++ type mappings? Do we still have these
undefined mappings that were brought up in may?
I couldn’t find an issue created for
this so I wanted to bring it back to our attentions and see if there are any
thoughts on this and if we could work on resolving these issues for 3.0 soon,
or perhaps work with the SCA TC team and make sure we use compatible mappings.
Issue [SDO-48] is also related and I think we may have to address that issue
before and finalize a resolution before we can take it a step further with the 3.0
C++ spec and define all of our currently undefined mappings.
Thanks,
James
From: Bryan Aupperle
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:35
AM
To:
Subject: [sdo] Mapping of signed
and unsigned integer values
I was looking at the SDO integer types and had a couple
of questions.
Currently
the SDO type Byte is defined as an 8-bit unsigned
integer, while Short, Int, and Long are 16, 32 and 64 bit signed integers respectively
Why
are the not any SDO types for unsigned 16,
32, and 64 bit integers (which are valid XSD types)? Or for that matter
an 8-bit signed integer (which is
what XSD:byte is)?
A
related concern the mapping of XSD:byte to SDO Byte appears to be an error
since -123 would be a valid value in the XML document but not in the SDO
instance.
I
suspect this topic has already been covered in earlier discussions so I did not
want to open an issues unless there is general agreement additional SDO types
are needed.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address:
