+1 for optional service/@targetNamespace. How about s/targetNamespace/namespace/ ?? The idea of "target" doesn't seem to make sense to me in that setting.
I don't see why we'd need to keep a namespace for schemas .. the XSD representation better keep that or we're in trouble anyway. I don't see it in the WSDD ref either. Can someone indicate why we need XSD namespaces please? Sanjiva. On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 23:38 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > <kidding> > Where have i seen a similar construct before :) > http://www.osmoticweb.com/axis-wsdd/service.htm > </kidding> > > Seriously...How about like this? we may end up doing other stuff > inside <schema/> > <service name="foo" scope="transport" targetNamespace="http://x.y.z";> > <schema targetNamespace="http://x.y.z"/> > </service> > > thanks, > dims > > On 1/8/06, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all; > > > > when we generate code using WSDL , it generates services.xml as well . So we > > need to keep its targetNamespaces in some where otherwise when we write them > > back we will lose them (see JIRA 365). Therefore we need to keep them , in > > the mean while if service author wants to give targetNamespace for his > > service he should be able to give that too , so I think we need have room > > for that in services.xml. So what do you think about the following approach > > .. > > > > <service name="foo" scope="transport"> > > <schematargetNamespace qname=""> > > <targetNamespace qname=""> > > </service> > > > > and those are optional , so if those are not there in services.xml then we > > will pick the default as now . pls comment your idea soon since there is a > > blocker on this issue. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Deepal > > ................................................................ > > ~Future is Open~ > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
