DataTypes: "baseType" and "scenario" #205
Replies: 1 comment
-
Response from Don Mendelson: The baseType attribute was carried over from Unified Repository. Not only was it not well defined, the values were often incorrect in my opinion. They were often based on the lexical space of tag-value encoding rather than value space. For example, the base type of UTCTimestamp is listed as String. But in SBE, time values are encoded with numeric values representing a number of time units; there is no semantic relationship to String. In my view, scenario is a better mechanism than baseType and the syntax is consistent with other elements in Orchestra. I recommend removing baseType. As for the usage of scenarios for datatypes, I can give a few examples:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
As we continue the work to enable Orchestra to support binary (exchange) protocols, these questions have come up:
“baseType” Attribute
The definition of a datatype can specify a “baseType”, as indicated in this paragraph, to inherit its properties. However, it is not clear what properties are inherited since I can see that a DataType only has the following properties:
In short, it would seem that the value of inheriting from another DataType is to inherit its BaseType. Is there anything else?
“scenario” Attribute
DataTypes also support scenarios, through the “scenario” attribute. Do we have a use-case for this? The only case I can think of where this is useful, is to crate a new scenario of a DataType to provide it with a different set of MappedDataTypes. Was this the requirement? Is there more to it? What happens to the scenario if the “base” scenario uses a “baseType” to inherit from another one? I think we should clarify it a bit better.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions