Well the intention is that people should use their own namespaces so as to prevent name conflicts, but we could enforce that by reject any use of dfdl or xpath functions namespaces. I'm disinclined to do that because we probably will propose dfdlx extension features and use this mechanism to implement as well as future dfdl official functions. Also, there could be functions added to XPath and we'd want to implement them with this perhaps. For example I've been wanting functions that convert integers to characters and back. We don't have a way to do that but clearly that sort of thing comes up in DFDL. At minimum we should state that the dfdl, dfdlx, and xpath functions namespaces are reserved. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:41 PM Bradd Kadlecik <braddk@us.ibm.com> wrote:
We don't have a java based approach to such things since our platform is very C/C++ centric so I appreciate that the requirement states the support in the DFDL schema must be language agnostic. With how you have it, it seems any namespace can be used so I'm wondering if the XPath and DFDL namespaces are going to be allowed. If so then are you opening the door to allow implementation of functions in the XPath namespace that aren't documented as supported or even a DFDL one that hasn't been supported yet by the DFDL parser?
Regards,
*Bradd Kadlecik* z/TPF Development ------------------------------ *Phone:* 1-845-433-1573 *E-mail:* *braddk@us.ibm.com* <braddk@us.ibm.com> 2455 South Rd Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-5400 United States
[image: Inactive hide details for Mike Beckerle ---01/09/2020 12:15:44 PM---There's no write up in offical Experimental Feature proposa]Mike Beckerle ---01/09/2020 12:15:44 PM---There's no write up in offical Experimental Feature proposal form yet,, but there are these things a
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Date: 01/09/2020 12:15 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DFDL-WG] pre-proposal for new experimental feature: User-defined Functions (UDF) Sent by: "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org>
------------------------------
There's no write up in offical Experimental Feature proposal form yet,, but there are these things about the Daffodil UDF implementation that is in forthcoming daffodil 2.5.0.
*https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DAFFODIL/Proposal%3A+Feature+to+... <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DAFFODIL/Proposal%3A+Feature+to+Support+User+Defined+Functions>
*https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/tree/master/daffodil-udf* <https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/tree/master/daffodil-udf>
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | *www.tresys.com* <http://www.tresys.com> Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the *OGF Intellectual Property Policy* <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php> -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
