Raymond Feng wrote: > Hi, Jeremy. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > For the SDO loader, I have posted a patch before ( > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg03792.html ). > Please review and apply. >
Thanks - I remember the type scoping discussion that followed and forgot the patch. I'll look at this later today. > Thank you for bringing up the issue on how we support more flexible > loader registrations. There are some potential use cases: > > 1) Register a loader by one or more element QNames (In the SDO loader > impl, a QName for now is required to create a loader instance for the > given element) I think we can do this now by providing your own init method or overriding start() and stop() in LoaderExtension - you just need to call register multiple times. Would that work or did you mean something else? > 2) Register a loader by one or more type QNames We had talked about extending the Loader contract to support types (I'll see if that is in the patch you referred to above). I think the current approach would work for this as well - seem reasonable? Once we do this I would suggest we also rename StAXElementLoader to StAXLoader (as it will be able to handle more than just elements). > 3) Register a loader by one or more namespaces > 4) Register a loader by wildcards against QNames > I'd like to discuss these a little more in conjunction with the extensibility story for SDO itself. I can see the value in SDO but this may be overkill for SCA. -- Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
