[DFDL-WG] Fw: OR operator in DFDL Expressions - what does IBM DFDL do?
Steve Hanson
smh at uk.ibm.com
Tue Sep 23 07:41:44 EDT 2014
Mike
IBM DFDL compiles XPath expressions into an instruction set. When it
processes the instruction set, if it encounters an OR then the first true
operand causes the expression to return true. However the rest of the
instruction set is processed, but the results (including any errors) are
ignored. Same for AND with first false operand. That's our Java
behaviour. But it looks like our C behaviour is different in that when the
rest of the instruction set is processed, any errors are not ignored !!
Which is taking 'implementation-dependent' a little too literally :)
XPath 2.0 spec here http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-errors-and-opt says
that the results of expressions are to a degree implementation-dependent,
which is admitting that two implementations might return different
results. In DFDL we already acknowledge that behaviour of implementations
might be different, in the paragraph of section 23 that talks about
dynamic versus static XPTY0004 errors.
I don't think we should force implementations to implement their XPath
processor to guarantee portability, because that has a knock-on effect on
other criteria like performance, but we can certainly publish guidelines
for schema authors so that they can author portable schemas.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
---- Reply ----
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
To: "dfdl-wg at ogf.org" <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>,
Date: 17/09/2014 09:05
Subject: [DFDL-WG] OR operator in DFDL Expressions
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
This is really a question about how IBM's DFDL works, but I have to
introduce the topic:
XPath 2.0 says that implementations have freedom about whether these
expressions cause errors or not:
true() or error() = true() Let's call this the sequential semantics
true() or error() = error Let's call this the parallel semantics
error() or true() = true Let's call this the bizarre semantics
There are analogous cases for 'and' with false()
Saxon, which dates from XPath 1.0, implements the sequential semantics,
which is required by XPath 1.0, and so that's what the various TDML tests
and such that we have in the Daffodil project have come to depend on.
Quite often we have things like
dfdl:occursIndex() = 1
or
../r[dfdl:occursIndex() - 1]/flag
where that 2nd operand is effectively an error if the first operand is
true.
Strictly by the new XPath 2.0 rules, the only portable way to write this
expression is with an if-then-else. But I am reluctant to change all these
tests we have.
Part of me says the most conservative thing is the parallel semantics -
because it prevents you from writing an OR statement like the one I have
above that depends on the sequentiality.
It is probably more important that the initial implementations are
consistent so that schemas are more likely to interoperate.
What does IBM DFDL do for the semantics of the OR expressions?
Thanks
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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20140923/096724d6/attachment.html>
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list