Mike, can't you use the xs: constructor
functions to convert integers to strings and back?
We should also state that the schema
(xs) namespace is reserved.
Regards
Steve Hanson
IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK
Architect, IBM
DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
Note: I work Tuesday to Friday
From:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:
Bradd Kadlecik <braddk@us.ibm.com>
Cc:
DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>
Date:
10/01/2020 01:09
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Re:
[DFDL-WG] pre-proposal for new experimental feature: User-definedFunctions
(UDF)
Sent by:
"dfdl-wg"
<dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org>
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
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
|
2455 South Rd
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-5400
United States |
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+Support+User+Defined+Functions
https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/tree/master/daffodil-udf
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
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU