RE: [sdo] Mapping of signed and unsigned integer values

We would need an issue to revise the
C++ spec.  so nothing has been done so far.  In some respect
this is an XML fidelity issue.

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: 

"James Hart"
<> 

08/21/2008 12:34 PM

To

Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <>

cc

Subject

RE: [sdo] Mapping of signed and unsigned
integer values

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: