You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> on 2017/01/11 22:39:00 UTC
[Converter] Questions about RFP
Hi!
I have some questions about this document:
https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-0169-Object-Conversion.pdf <https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-0169-Object-Conversion.pdf>
First: 5.2 Maps, M0020: It must be possible to convert a DTO+ to a Map<String, Object> and vice versa
Does this mean a “deep” conversion? I.e. any embedded objects will also be converted to a Map? Or embedded objects will be passed along “as is” and only the parent object is converted?
Second: D0040: Provide a way to set/get fields from a DTO+ through a string path
Where is this located in the API? Is it possible that this and other requirements have been abandoned?
Thanks for the clarifications.
Regards,
=David
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,
It would definitely be a good idea!
Cheers,
David
On 16 January 2017 at 16:53, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks, David B.
>
> Should I make the comment for the “sourceAsDTO()”?
>
>
> Cheers,
> =David
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:46 AM, David Bosschaert <
> david.bosschaert@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > The best place to put spec comments is via the official OSGi feedback
> > mechanism, as described at the bottom of [1].
> > Basically by creating a bug in the following issue tracker:
> > https://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=OSGi%20Specification
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/osgi/design
> >
> > On 16 January 2017 at 16:42, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks! I’ll give it a closer read. Comments go on this list, or
> somewhere
> >> else?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> =David
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:27 AM, David Bosschaert <
> >> david.bosschaert@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi David,
> >>>
> >>> On 16 January 2017 at 16:19, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi David B.,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in
> >>>> OSGi.
> >>>>> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in
> >> the
> >>>>> expert group.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to
> the
> >>>> spec? Has it now been finalised?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The actual spec chapter is still being worked on and is not yet
> >> finalised.
> >>> However an early access draft was release last October. You can find it
> >>> here: https://www.osgi.org/developer/specifications/drafts/
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Leangen <os...@leangen.net>.
Thanks, David B.
Should I make the comment for the “sourceAsDTO()”?
Cheers,
=David
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:46 AM, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> The best place to put spec comments is via the official OSGi feedback
> mechanism, as described at the bottom of [1].
> Basically by creating a bug in the following issue tracker:
> https://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=OSGi%20Specification
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> [1] https://github.com/osgi/design
>
> On 16 January 2017 at 16:42, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks! I’ll give it a closer read. Comments go on this list, or somewhere
>> else?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> =David
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:27 AM, David Bosschaert <
>> david.bosschaert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On 16 January 2017 at 16:19, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi David B.,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
>>>>
>>>>> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in
>>>> OSGi.
>>>>> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in
>> the
>>>>> expert group.
>>>>
>>>> You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to the
>>>> spec? Has it now been finalised?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The actual spec chapter is still being worked on and is not yet
>> finalised.
>>> However an early access draft was release last October. You can find it
>>> here: https://www.osgi.org/developer/specifications/drafts/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> David
>>
>>
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,
The best place to put spec comments is via the official OSGi feedback
mechanism, as described at the bottom of [1].
Basically by creating a bug in the following issue tracker:
https://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=OSGi%20Specification
Cheers,
David
[1] https://github.com/osgi/design
On 16 January 2017 at 16:42, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks! I’ll give it a closer read. Comments go on this list, or somewhere
> else?
>
> Cheers,
> =David
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:27 AM, David Bosschaert <
> david.bosschaert@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On 16 January 2017 at 16:19, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi David B.,
> >>
> >> Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
> >>
> >>> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in
> >> OSGi.
> >>> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in
> the
> >>> expert group.
> >>
> >> You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to the
> >> spec? Has it now been finalised?
> >>
> >
> > The actual spec chapter is still being worked on and is not yet
> finalised.
> > However an early access draft was release last October. You can find it
> > here: https://www.osgi.org/developer/specifications/drafts/
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
>
>
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Leangen <os...@leangen.net>.
Thanks! I’ll give it a closer read. Comments go on this list, or somewhere else?
Cheers,
=David
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:27 AM, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> On 16 January 2017 at 16:19, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi David B.,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
>>
>>> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in
>> OSGi.
>>> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in the
>>> expert group.
>>
>> You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to the
>> spec? Has it now been finalised?
>>
>
> The actual spec chapter is still being worked on and is not yet finalised.
> However an early access draft was release last October. You can find it
> here: https://www.osgi.org/developer/specifications/drafts/
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,
On 16 January 2017 at 16:19, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
> Hi David B.,
>
> Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
>
> > This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in
> OSGi.
> > Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in the
> > expert group.
>
> You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to the
> spec? Has it now been finalised?
>
The actual spec chapter is still being worked on and is not yet finalised.
However an early access draft was release last October. You can find it
here: https://www.osgi.org/developer/specifications/drafts/
Cheers,
David
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Leangen <os...@leangen.net>.
Hi David B.,
Thanks for looking into all my questions and PRs.
> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in OSGi.
> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in the
> expert group.
You have probably already done so, but could you please point me to the spec? Has it now been finalised?
Cheers,
=David
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:17 AM, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> On 11 January 2017 at 22:39, David Leangen <osgi@leangen.net <ma...@leangen.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have some questions about this document:
>>
>> https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-
>> 0169-Object-Conversion.pdf <https://github.com/osgi/
>> design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-0169-Object-Conversion.pdf>
>>
>>
>> First: 5.2 Maps, M0020: It must be possible to convert a DTO+ to a
>> Map<String, Object> and vice versa
>>
>> Does this mean a “deep” conversion? I.e. any embedded objects will also be
>> converted to a Map? Or embedded objects will be passed along “as is” and
>> only the parent object is converted?
>>
>
> That's a good question. I think it should be a shallow conversion,
> otherwise the behaviour becomes ambiguous. If the DTO field 'foo' contains
> an instance of some other DTO, there is no issue with putting that object
> in the map, since it's a Map<String, Object>. If the target is a
> Map<String, String> the value of the other DTO would be converted to a
> String first... Hope that makes sense...
>
>
>>
>> Second: D0040: Provide a way to set/get fields from a DTO+ through a
>> string path
>>
>> Where is this located in the API? Is it possible that this and other
>> requirements have been abandoned?
>>
>>
> This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in OSGi.
> Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in the
> expert group.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
Re: [Converter] Questions about RFP
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,
On 11 January 2017 at 22:39, David Leangen <os...@leangen.net> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I have some questions about this document:
>
> https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-
> 0169-Object-Conversion.pdf <https://github.com/osgi/
> design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-0169-Object-Conversion.pdf>
>
>
> First: 5.2 Maps, M0020: It must be possible to convert a DTO+ to a
> Map<String, Object> and vice versa
>
> Does this mean a “deep” conversion? I.e. any embedded objects will also be
> converted to a Map? Or embedded objects will be passed along “as is” and
> only the parent object is converted?
>
That's a good question. I think it should be a shallow conversion,
otherwise the behaviour becomes ambiguous. If the DTO field 'foo' contains
an instance of some other DTO, there is no issue with putting that object
in the map, since it's a Map<String, Object>. If the target is a
Map<String, String> the value of the other DTO would be converted to a
String first... Hope that makes sense...
>
> Second: D0040: Provide a way to set/get fields from a DTO+ through a
> string path
>
> Where is this located in the API? Is it possible that this and other
> requirements have been abandoned?
>
>
This requirement didn't make it in the spec. This is quite normal in OSGi.
Requirements are sometimes dropped or postponed if this agreed to in the
expert group.
Cheers,
David