Hi Ralf

hi udai

I have few doubts

about the validation as i am trying to draw a picture of the process

I had just figured out about properties that we might need for some classes during validation as you told

I was thinking that if we have the information about field first then we can reduce the authType list accordingly

but you said that we can assume that we have the information about fields from CD (if I didn't missed something)

IMHO I think if we have field first we can check the expressions comparing to field type

and there should be some exception like InvalidQueryObject which should be thrown showing the stacktrace when we encounter an invalid QO (validation() fails )

the stacktrace can show where we encountered the error during validation

@Exception: good idea. would call it InvalidQueryException or something like that

@field: you remember the problem with refactoring of CD

yes

according to this refactoring it does not make sense to work at resolve process

until we can work against SVN HEAD which will require some work from me

@field: thats why I have no Idea about the information format

but atm i am a bit short of time so this may take a while

okay in the mean while I will try to make this picture more clear

can you tell me the issue for CD

for the time being it should be no problem for you which information you will need for a field for the validation process

I mean where I can see what changes werner made what was those earlier

wanted to say: for the time being it should be no problem for you to define which information you will need for a field for the validation process

okay I will try to figure out that

then you can add getter and setter methods for this info

getter and setter where?

to test validation you can use those getters/setters to test validation

oh okay

I think this will be fine

if you need the type of the field then you have to add getters/setters for the type of the field

@CD changes: about everything changed. interfaces, methods, how to use them

okay

sorry the network went down.....

okay so I will be doing as said

i thought a bit about our project at the weekend.

while i expected that we could implement some more features during GSoC

at the beginning

i now think we reached a good point to declare the GSoC project as finished

even if there is a lot of work left until this could be integrated into Castor

as already said, i will appreciate if you continue to contribute to Castor and its new query engine

but it's up to you how much time you like to spend on that

i'll fill GSoC evaluation the next few days

Its all my pleasure workking with you so as I already said I will continue working on this issue

great

I will try my best to finish the remaining part of our work

i just wanted to let you know my thoughts and that it is up to you how much time you spend on that

now its more than GSoC for me as its gives me an opportunity to learn

i also think tht it is a good opportunity to practis the theory you learn at university

of course

be back in a minute

I will be out for dinner...will be back in an hour