How I can define Data Mapping in the arxml file .
I want to define relation between system signal and datatypes.
I don't know what are the rules i need to follow while doing this?.Is there help available for this on internet.
Thanks
Related
If I have arxml file with a Ethernet Cluster define in it.Then how to find out if it has SOME/IP PDU in it?
You should look for an ISignalIPdu where an ISignal is mapped to it and the ISignal aggregates a SOMEIPTransformationISignalProps that in turn references a SOMEIPTransformationDescription that fulfills constr_3128 in the role transformer.
As per my last post I got the clue to understand ATP Splitability feature of AUTOSAR. But I don't find any link how the splitability is presented in an arxml file. Any info on this? Because this aplitability is a stereotype and has present in annotated format. currently I am lacking the info on how the stereotype elements looks inside an AUTOSAR ARXML or arxml file.
The stereotype isn't represented at all in an ARXML file. The stereotype just indicates to creators of an AUTOSAR tool that tools loading the model shall accept the existence of the same model element (aggregated or referenced in the stereotyped role in the meta-model) in two different ARXML files loaded into the tool.
i though that a vocabulary was a special type of directory or that at list a directory could provide a source for a vocabulary. It seems notData List and directories. What i want to acheive is to plug my taxonomy server into nuxeo. In other words, i would like nuxeo to use taxonomies that are defined externally. Isn't the directory abstraction meant for it ? The taxonomy server provide some rest service for external access.
Yes the directory abstraction is designed to abstract lists like yours. You need to implement a new Nuxeo component and implement a org.nuxeo.ecm.directory.DirectoryFactory and a org.nuxeo.ecm.directory.Directory as well as a org.nuxeo.ecm.directory.Session. It's not as easy as it should and involves a few classes, but it's quite feasible.
You can take as an example the SQL implementation in nuxeo-platform-directory-sql to get an idea if what's needed.
What properties are supposed to put Haskell modules under namespace rather Control than Data or vice versa? Any guidelines or insights are much appreciated.
Haskell has rough guidelines
on how to name module names. You can go through that link to get an general idea about it. The general convention is that Control will hold some sort of abstraction pattern where as Data will hold some data types and data structure.
I'm developing a rather large XML Schema to integrate multiple disparate systems. Each system has messages that consist of multiple fields. I've written the schemas so that each field is represented as a type (either simple or complex), while the entire message is represented as an element with a sequence of multiple types.
When defining types using XSD, what is the convention in terms of how you break up your files?
I've been going down the path of having a separate XSD file for each type that I am defining, then a single XSD file that defines the message and imports the required XSD files.
Here's a simplified example showing the structure (can't post images, no reputation).
Type schemas (fields) have a namespace ending in "types", while message schemas have a namespace ending in "messages".
My reasoning was that it would be easier to compose new types using existing types if they were defined in their own file, and that versioning types might be easier.
Is there a better approach? I'm relatively new to XML and Schemas. Thanks in advance.
It makes no sense to have one schema per type. One schema per domain area, yes, but not one per type.
For instance, you might have one schema to define types related to customers, and another schema to define types related to products. You might have a separate schema to define common types like people and addresses, which might be used by the customer schema and also by the product schema (product sales rep, vendor address).
You might combine these in a schema related to order processing, since it involves orders made by customers for products.
Are the separate xsd files you created completely unrelated to eachother? For example if one xsd file handles the sales domain and the other one handles the payments domain, you should give each schema a unique domain specific targetNamespace. This approach is called "Heterogeneous namespace design" and you are using it now. I believe it is best suited for your requirement. Since you are having multiple disparate systems it is better to maintain them in separate xsd files with different targetNamespaces. This enhances re-usability and reduces redundancy of types/fields. It also prevents namespace collisions. However if you have a large number of imports it becomes a challenge to manage and there will be dependency on the granularity of the types defined in the imported schemas.
If they are related to each other you should go for "Homogeneous namespace design".
There are two other approaches for XML Schema design:Homogenous Namespace Design and Chameleon Namespace Design which may not best suit your specific requirement. You can further get details on the benefits/drawbacks of all these three different schema design approaches at http://technologyandleadership.com/three-schema-design-approaches/