Issue 15968: formal description of how topic types are mapped to Java classes needed (dds-psm-java-ftf) Source: PrismTech (Dr. Angelo Corsaro, PhD., angelo.corsaro(at)prismtech.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The DDS-PSM-Java currently provides examples of the the new mapping from the DDS type system to the Java programming language but does not provide a formal description of how topic types are mapped to Java classes. This underspecification should be filled to align the DDS-PSM-Java with the DDS-PSM-Cxx and to ensure that different/old mappings are used by DDS implementations. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 17, 2011: received issue Discussion: [Rick] Note that DDS-PSM-Cxx does not require implementations to use the new Plain Language Binding it defines; that binding is an optional conformance point. I believe that’s the right model to follow in DDS-PSM-Java as well. The FTF membership discussed this issue at the Orlando meeting and agreed to the following principles: 1. This issue overlaps the existing scope of the specification (i.e. the existing Java Type Representation) sufficiently that the issue should be accepted and resolved. 2. The Plain Language Binding for Java would map type members to Java Bean-style property accessors and mutators. This pattern is familiar to Java programmers, understandable to type designers, and consistent with the approach taken in the DDS-PSM-Cxx spec and the forthcoming IDL-to-C++11 specifications. 3. Ideally, the application of the Java Type Representation and the Plain Language Binding should be idempotent. In other words, if a type designer (a) starts with a Java class, (b) infers from it a type in the DDS type system (according to the Java Type Representation), and then (c) maps that abstract type back to a Java class (according to the Plain Language Binding), the result should be the same as the type he started with in (a) (or very close to it). The implication of the above principles is that unfortunately the Java Type Representation will need to change significantly. Since this realization comes late in the process, and we intend to charter a second FTF anyway (because of the schedule of DDS-XTypes, on which this specification depends), it is prudent to defer this issue until it can be resolved carefully and thoroughly. Resolution: Defer this issue. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== te: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:57:00 +0100 From: Angelo Corsaro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101218 Thunderbird/3.1.7 To: DDS-PSM-Java FTF , Juergen Boldt , Richard Warren Subject: DDS-PMS-Java Issue Dear Juergen / Rick, I would like to raise the following issue on the DDS-PSM-Java. Issue Description The DDS-PSM-Java currently provides examples of the the new mapping from the DDS type system to the Java programming language but does not provide a formal description of how topic types are mapped to Java classes. This underspecification should be filled to align the DDS-PSM-Java with the DDS-PSM-Cxx and to ensure that different/old mappings are used by DDS implementations. Cheers, Angelo -- Angelo Corsaro, PhD Chief Technology Officer PrismTech 4 rue Angiboust | 91460 Marcoussis | France T +33 1 69 01 53 54 | M +33 6 42 30 75 65 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://twitter.com/acorsaro | http://opensplice.blogspot.com | http://slideshare.net/angelo.corsaro --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Warren To: "dds-psm-java-ftf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:18:35 -0700 Subject: [Issue 15968] Overlap between Java Type Representation and proposed Plain Language Binding Thread-Topic: [Issue 15968] Overlap between Java Type Representation and proposed Plain Language Binding Thread-Index: AcxxokvfG4JAl5HFTo+c5leMIV1j7Q== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Hi, The issue report reads, ..to ensure that different/old mappings are used by DDS implementations.. I suspect the intention was to say, ..to ensure that different/old mappings are not used by DDS implementations.. Note that DDS-PSM-Cxx does not require implementations to use the new Plain Language Binding it defines; that binding is an optional conformance point. I believe that.s the right model to follow in DDS-PSM-Java as well. An updated Plain Language Binding for Java could potentially overlap with the Java Type Representation that DDS-PSM-Java specifies. The FTF should discuss the extent to which these two concepts should be aligned/merged. Regards, - Rick -- Rick Warren Director of Technology Solutions RTI Tel 626.584.0141 rick.warren@rti.com www.rti.com RTI - The Global Leader in DDS OMG Issue No: 15968 Title: formal description of how topic types are mapped to Java classes needed Source: PrismTech (Dr. Angelo Corsaro, PhD., angelo.corsaro@prismtech.com) Summary: The DDS-PSM-Java currently provides examples of the new mapping from the DDS type system to the Java programming language but does not provide a formal description of how topic types are mapped to Java classes. This under-specification should be filled to align the DDS-PSM-Java with the DDS-PSM-Cxx and to ensure that different/old mappings are used by DDS implementations.