Tim Thanks for your comments on the choices section. The dfdl:choiceKind property is intended to be used when the space occupied by the choice is implicitly defined by the children but the space occupied must always be that of the longest branch. The primary use case is, as you say, COBOL REDEFINES and C Unions, where a compiler is allocating memory for the language 'choice' construct. The main issues you have highlighted are: a) The calculation of the length of the longest branch. b) The length units to use - the dfdl:lengthUnits property does not exist on a choice c) The name could be better Let's have a look at a COBOL example. 01 DATA. 05 HEADER PIC X(10) 05 BODY PIC X(10). 05 DETAIL REDEFINES BODY. 10 KEY PIC X(3). 10 CONTENT PIC X(7). 05 TRAILER PIC X(10) What we would like to see for the logical structure, to preserve the COBOL naming hierarchy into the DFDL infoset, is: <xs:element name="DATA"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="HEADER" type="xs:string"/> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="BODY" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="DETAIL"/> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="KEY" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="CONTENT" type="xs:string"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:choice> <xs:element name="TRAILER" type="xs:string"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> You suggested wrapping the xs:choice in an xs:element to carry a length computed by COBOL -> DFDL tooling, or by the user manually. The problem is that forces the introduction of an extra level and name into the infoset, which does not match the COBOL. Users will not expect that. Further, existing IBM COBOL -> XSD tooling creates the above logical structure with no wrapping, so any wrapping will not be compatible. For users without COBOL -> DFDL tooling, you are forcing them to compute the length manually. I don't think your suggestion will work. When the xs:choice is included directly in a xs:sequence or another xs:choice, there is no dfdl:lengthKind and no dfdl:lengthUnits, because we no longer have those properties on xs:choice, they are only on xs:element. We can't solve this by wrapping in an element, as just shown, so the solution is to decouple dfdl:choiceKind from its parent altogether. You are correct in pointing out that the length calculation is not always easy. That can be alleviated by restricting the cases when dfdl:choiceKind='fixedLength' is allowed. Any violation is detected at static validation time and a schema definition error results. These can, and likely will, be very restrictive as we are supporting a specific use case here. We can debate the name/enums for the property. For example, dfdl:choicePadKind='none'/'longest' or dfdl:choicePadToLongest='yes'/'no' conveys the semantic to me. My proposal is therefore to retain the property but to: i) State the conditions that must apply to use this property, and enforce them in the validator => schema definition error otherwise ii) Decouple the choice from its parent by calculating the length of each branch based solely on the properties of the branches components, irrespective of any parent dfdl:lengthKind iii) Choose a better name for the property Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL WG Hursley, UK, Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 From: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 04/03/2010 11:31 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] dfdl-wg Digest, Vol 43, Issue 2 Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org I have a bunch of questions/issues relating to dfdl:choiceKind. I'm not asking for changes in v0.40, but I expect there will be changes required. The issues that I want to raise are: a) The description of the property in v0.39 contains several typos and inaccuracies. - 'implicit' is being used where 'fixedLength' was intended. - nothing is said about the units in which the length is calculated. - there's no need to discuss how the choice is resolved when discussing the 'variableLength' enum - we should use standard phraseology when indicating whether a property can be computed from a DFDL expression. b) Property name should be 'choiceLengthKind' to accurately reflect its meaning c) There is a need for a related property 'choiceLengthUnits' Consider the recursive algorithm for calculating the length of each branch. It needs to know whether it is calculating a length in bytes or characters. If the length is in bytes, then the length cannot be calculated for variable-width encodings. If the length is in characters, then the length cannot always be calculated reliably if there are raw byte values in the markup. d) The rules for calculating the max length of the choice are not provided. They are complex, and not at all obvious. Consider these issues: The length of a branch cannot be calculated if - there are any optional elements or variable-length arrays anywhere in the branch - any field in the branch has dfdl:alignment > "1" ( at least, I can't work out what the rules would be. The alignment of the parent element would need to be factored in ) - any element or group in the branch specifies its initiator, terminator or separator as a DFDL expression - any element or group in the branch specifies its length as a DFDL expression if choiceLengthUnits='characters' then the length cannot be calculated if - any element or group in the branch specifies a DFDL string literal containing DFDL mnemonics %NL; %WSP*; or %WSP+; - any element or group in the branch uses a DFDL string literal that contains sequence of raw byte values with length different from the fixed character width if choiceLengthUnits='characters' then the length cannot be calculated if - any element in the branch specifies a variable-width encoding, or specifies its encoding as a DFDL expression. There are probably other rules which need to be applied, but the above should illustrate the point. Calculating the length is only possible under some *very* restrictive conditions. e) I think the property may not be required As far as I am aware, this property was introduced to provide support for COBOL REDEFINES, and to allow MRM message sets to be migrated to DFDL. If true, the problem gets a lot simpler: - COBOL does not use initiators/terminators. - The COBOL compiler contains code that calculates the length of the structure ( it must, because COBOL has a rule that a REDEFINES cannot be longer than the record that it is redefining ). Presumably, it takes alignment into account in some way, and handles issues relating to character width as well. - COBOL does not allow an anonymous REDEFINES. If imported, A REDEFINES will always produce a complex element whose content is a fixed-length choice. Note : This means that the same will be true of any MRM message set created by message broker's COBOLimporter. If those assumptions are correct, then in all cases the same effect could be achieved by putting the precalculated length of the REDEFINES onto the parent element. I think this merits serious consideration. The cost of implementing choiceKind='fixedLength' is quite high because of the complexity of the rules, and the fact that groups, as well as complex elements, can have a fixed length. But it's not really an implementation issue, it's a complexity issue. DFDL should not contain a propery with such complex implementation requirements unless there's a strong case for it - otherwise potential implementers are going to be put off. The existing COBOL importer probably does not set the precalculated length of a REDEFINES on the parent element. That would be required if we wanted to remove the property - so we would have to discuss that with the group that provides the importer technology. regards, Tim Kimber, Common Transformation Team, Hursley, UK Internet: kimbert@uk.ibm.com Tel. 01962-816742 Internal tel. 246742 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 -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://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