[DFDL-WG] pre-proposal for new experimental feature: User-definedFunctions (UDF)

[Mike Beckerle]

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 at 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 at us.ibm.com* <braddk at 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 at gmail.com>
> To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at 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 at 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://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 at ogf.org
>  https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20200109/bfd23f09/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20200109/bfd23f09/attachment-0001.gif>