Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc)  » [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata
[teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #86504] Thu, 14 June 2007 19:16 Go to next message
Julia is currently offline JuliaFriend
Messages: 85
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Martin,

I have been working with several separate xsd files used within my
application. Some of the xsd files refer to other xsd file eg topology.xsd
header looks like this

<xs:schema
targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"
xmlns:security=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-security.xsd"


The navigation.xsd header looks like this:
<xs:schema
targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
xmlns:navigation=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"

What is the best way to create the metadata file(s) for this kind of
xsd(s)?
1) For example base.xsd is common to both. Should there be one set of
base.xsd tables and both topology and navigation.xsd should refer to the
base tables? There could be duplicate entries. Would the system know which
row to delete if needed? Or should there be a separate base tables for
each xsds?
2) Navigation.xsd also references topology.xsd. But neither is a
superset/subset of each other. I think creating separate topology tables
would be best. But unfortunately it uses the same namespace. Would
annotation be usefule here?
3) Or should there be one giant metadata jdo file for both xsd file?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Julia
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #86565 is a reply to message #86504] Fri, 15 June 2007 12:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Taal is currently offline Martin TaalFriend
Messages: 5468
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Julia,
I will do my best to answer your questions.

1) It always depends on different things, because both navigation and topology both use the same
base.xsd model, the most logical answer is that there should be one set of tables for base.xsd
(otherwise why would they share the same base model). Although at first sight there maybe not so
much overlap between the actual instance data between topology and navigation (at least that is what
I guess you mean) it is for other reasons easier if the same types are placed in the tables (for
example for reporting, or other external tools).

2) when looking at part 2 of your post you say that navigation also references topology but that you
prefer separate tables. Why is that?

3) When creating a jdo file Teneo requires both the epackage(s) itself and the epackage(s) on which
they depend (it needs this to compute foreign-key mappings etc). In your case you maybe want to have
separate jdo files for navigation and topology (for example because they are distributed
separately). So what you can try is create a jdo file for base.xsd and topology.xsd and a second jdo
file for base.xsd and navigation.xsd. As the base.xsd part in both jdo's is the same the end result
should be that only one set of tables is created for the base.xsd part. (you need to test this to be
sure ofcourse).

gr. Martin

Julia wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have been working with several separate xsd files used within my
> application. Some of the xsd files refer to other xsd file eg
> topology.xsd header looks like this
>
> <xs:schema
> targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"
> xmlns:security=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-security.xsd"
>
>
> The navigation.xsd header looks like this:
> <xs:schema
> targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
>
> xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:navigation=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
>
> xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"
>
> What is the best way to create the metadata file(s) for this kind of
> xsd(s)?
> 1) For example base.xsd is common to both. Should there be one set of
> base.xsd tables and both topology and navigation.xsd should refer to the
> base tables? There could be duplicate entries. Would the system know
> which row to delete if needed? Or should there be a separate base tables
> for each xsds?
> 2) Navigation.xsd also references topology.xsd. But neither is a
> superset/subset of each other. I think creating separate topology tables
> would be best. But unfortunately it uses the same namespace. Would
> annotation be usefule here?
> 3) Or should there be one giant metadata jdo file for both xsd file?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Julia
>


--

With Regards, Martin Taal

Springsite/Elver.org
Office: Hardwareweg 4, 3821 BV Amersfoort
Postal: Nassaulaan 7, 3941 EC Doorn
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)84 420 2397
Fax: +31 (0)84 225 9307
Mail: mtaal@springsite.com - mtaal@elver.org
Web: www.springsite.com - www.elver.org
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #86759 is a reply to message #86565] Mon, 18 June 2007 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Julia is currently offline JuliaFriend
Messages: 85
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Martin,

My current application outputs all data to xml files. We want to be able
to scale upwards to use a database. but we still need to ability to use
file datastores. We want to maintain a common code base iwthout radically
altering previous code.

1) Yes I think that having a single set of base.xsd tables should work. I
will test this out. But I'm a little puzzled how the system would know
what row belongs to what xsds? There does not appear to be anyting linking
the referring xsd to the base.xsd. Do I have to add that as say a separate
column in base.xsd?

2) Navigation.xsd refers to topology.xsd but as it turns out topology.xsd
data is divided into to separate xml files (topology.xml and
global-topology.xml). So data from both these xmls can be used in
navigation.xsd tables. I was going to create separate tables for
topology,global-topology.xml and for the topology elements in
navigation.xsd. But I'm not sure if this is the right direction to go.
Could I use one set of topolopy.xsd tables and some how recognize what row
belongs to what xsd?

3) Yes a single metadata file per xsd would be easier to maintain.

Julia
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #86815 is a reply to message #86759] Tue, 19 June 2007 22:26 Go to previous message
Martin Taal is currently offline Martin TaalFriend
Messages: 5468
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Julia,
See inline below.

gr. Martin

Julia wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> My current application outputs all data to xml files. We want to be able
> to scale upwards to use a database. but we still need to ability to use
> file datastores. We want to maintain a common code base iwthout
> radically altering previous code.
>
> 1) Yes I think that having a single set of base.xsd tables should work.
> I will test this out. But I'm a little puzzled how the system would know
> what row belongs to what xsds? There does not appear to be anyting
> linking the referring xsd to the base.xsd. Do I have to add that as say
> a separate column in base.xsd?
MT>> I am not sure what you mean, the link between the referring xsd and the base.xsd is the
ereference from the referring xsd to the base.xsd, maybe I am missing something?
Or do you mean that when creating the actual data in the tables you don't know which data was
entered for the base.xsd as such or which data is refered to from the other xsd's?

>
> 2) Navigation.xsd refers to topology.xsd but as it turns out
> topology.xsd data is divided into to separate xml files (topology.xml
> and global-topology.xml). So data from both these xmls can be used in
> navigation.xsd tables. I was going to create separate tables for
> topology,global-topology.xml and for the topology elements in
> navigation.xsd. But I'm not sure if this is the right direction to go.
> Could I use one set of topolopy.xsd tables and some how recognize what
> row belongs to what xsd?
MT>> I am not sure what you mean with 'recognize what row belongs to what xsd', do mean what rows
belongs to what xml?

>
> 3) Yes a single metadata file per xsd would be easier to maintain.
>
> Julia
>


--

With Regards, Martin Taal

Springsite/Elver.org
Office: Hardwareweg 4, 3821 BV Amersfoort
Postal: Nassaulaan 7, 3941 EC Doorn
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)84 420 2397
Fax: +31 (0)84 225 9307
Mail: mtaal@springsite.com - mtaal@elver.org
Web: www.springsite.com - www.elver.org
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #606998 is a reply to message #86504] Fri, 15 June 2007 12:25 Go to previous message
Martin Taal is currently offline Martin TaalFriend
Messages: 5468
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Julia,
I will do my best to answer your questions.

1) It always depends on different things, because both navigation and topology both use the same
base.xsd model, the most logical answer is that there should be one set of tables for base.xsd
(otherwise why would they share the same base model). Although at first sight there maybe not so
much overlap between the actual instance data between topology and navigation (at least that is what
I guess you mean) it is for other reasons easier if the same types are placed in the tables (for
example for reporting, or other external tools).

2) when looking at part 2 of your post you say that navigation also references topology but that you
prefer separate tables. Why is that?

3) When creating a jdo file Teneo requires both the epackage(s) itself and the epackage(s) on which
they depend (it needs this to compute foreign-key mappings etc). In your case you maybe want to have
separate jdo files for navigation and topology (for example because they are distributed
separately). So what you can try is create a jdo file for base.xsd and topology.xsd and a second jdo
file for base.xsd and navigation.xsd. As the base.xsd part in both jdo's is the same the end result
should be that only one set of tables is created for the base.xsd part. (you need to test this to be
sure ofcourse).

gr. Martin

Julia wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have been working with several separate xsd files used within my
> application. Some of the xsd files refer to other xsd file eg
> topology.xsd header looks like this
>
> <xs:schema
> targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"
> xmlns:security=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-security.xsd"
>
>
> The navigation.xsd header looks like this:
> <xs:schema
> targetNamespace=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
>
> xmlns:portal=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-topology.xsd"
> xmlns:navigation=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-navigation.xsd"
>
> xmlns:base=" http://www.ibm.com/websphere/appserver/schemas/6.0/ibm-porta l-base.xsd"
>
> What is the best way to create the metadata file(s) for this kind of
> xsd(s)?
> 1) For example base.xsd is common to both. Should there be one set of
> base.xsd tables and both topology and navigation.xsd should refer to the
> base tables? There could be duplicate entries. Would the system know
> which row to delete if needed? Or should there be a separate base tables
> for each xsds?
> 2) Navigation.xsd also references topology.xsd. But neither is a
> superset/subset of each other. I think creating separate topology tables
> would be best. But unfortunately it uses the same namespace. Would
> annotation be usefule here?
> 3) Or should there be one giant metadata jdo file for both xsd file?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Julia
>


--

With Regards, Martin Taal

Springsite/Elver.org
Office: Hardwareweg 4, 3821 BV Amersfoort
Postal: Nassaulaan 7, 3941 EC Doorn
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)84 420 2397
Fax: +31 (0)84 225 9307
Mail: mtaal@springsite.com - mtaal@elver.org
Web: www.springsite.com - www.elver.org
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #607013 is a reply to message #86565] Mon, 18 June 2007 22:59 Go to previous message
Julia is currently offline JuliaFriend
Messages: 85
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Martin,

My current application outputs all data to xml files. We want to be able
to scale upwards to use a database. but we still need to ability to use
file datastores. We want to maintain a common code base iwthout radically
altering previous code.

1) Yes I think that having a single set of base.xsd tables should work. I
will test this out. But I'm a little puzzled how the system would know
what row belongs to what xsds? There does not appear to be anyting linking
the referring xsd to the base.xsd. Do I have to add that as say a separate
column in base.xsd?

2) Navigation.xsd refers to topology.xsd but as it turns out topology.xsd
data is divided into to separate xml files (topology.xml and
global-topology.xml). So data from both these xmls can be used in
navigation.xsd tables. I was going to create separate tables for
topology,global-topology.xml and for the topology elements in
navigation.xsd. But I'm not sure if this is the right direction to go.
Could I use one set of topolopy.xsd tables and some how recognize what row
belongs to what xsd?

3) Yes a single metadata file per xsd would be easier to maintain.

Julia
Re: [teneo/jpox] Question of design of metadata [message #607018 is a reply to message #86759] Tue, 19 June 2007 22:26 Go to previous message
Martin Taal is currently offline Martin TaalFriend
Messages: 5468
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Julia,
See inline below.

gr. Martin

Julia wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> My current application outputs all data to xml files. We want to be able
> to scale upwards to use a database. but we still need to ability to use
> file datastores. We want to maintain a common code base iwthout
> radically altering previous code.
>
> 1) Yes I think that having a single set of base.xsd tables should work.
> I will test this out. But I'm a little puzzled how the system would know
> what row belongs to what xsds? There does not appear to be anyting
> linking the referring xsd to the base.xsd. Do I have to add that as say
> a separate column in base.xsd?
MT>> I am not sure what you mean, the link between the referring xsd and the base.xsd is the
ereference from the referring xsd to the base.xsd, maybe I am missing something?
Or do you mean that when creating the actual data in the tables you don't know which data was
entered for the base.xsd as such or which data is refered to from the other xsd's?

>
> 2) Navigation.xsd refers to topology.xsd but as it turns out
> topology.xsd data is divided into to separate xml files (topology.xml
> and global-topology.xml). So data from both these xmls can be used in
> navigation.xsd tables. I was going to create separate tables for
> topology,global-topology.xml and for the topology elements in
> navigation.xsd. But I'm not sure if this is the right direction to go.
> Could I use one set of topolopy.xsd tables and some how recognize what
> row belongs to what xsd?
MT>> I am not sure what you mean with 'recognize what row belongs to what xsd', do mean what rows
belongs to what xml?

>
> 3) Yes a single metadata file per xsd would be easier to maintain.
>
> Julia
>


--

With Regards, Martin Taal

Springsite/Elver.org
Office: Hardwareweg 4, 3821 BV Amersfoort
Postal: Nassaulaan 7, 3941 EC Doorn
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)84 420 2397
Fax: +31 (0)84 225 9307
Mail: mtaal@springsite.com - mtaal@elver.org
Web: www.springsite.com - www.elver.org
Previous Topic:EMF Compare - Diffing EMF UML2 XMI
Next Topic:[Teneo] Child objects in DB have multiple references to parent.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jan 21 16:14:30 GMT 2021

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02564 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top