Hi Richard!
Thank you for posting this stuff before committing. In general, this is a fine direction, but I think these need another round of edits before they're ready for primetime. Some comments in no particular order: NS_URI is used to mean "namespace URI". Some of the constants are not actually ever used as namespaces (NS_URI_WSDD_HANDLER springs to mind), and should, I believe just be URI_ (URI_WSDD_HANDLER). Other examples of this include the actor URIs and the SOAP HTTP binding URIs. I'd actually prefer URI_*_NS over NS_URI_* for namespaces, so that all URI constants are URI_*. URIs used ONLY as namespaces would get the _NS suffix, but I'd also be fine simply punting the "NS" entirely, so you'd have "URI_2001_SCHEMA_XSD", which makes fine sense. NS_*_NS is redundant. NS_URI_SOAP12_FAULT_NS, etc. It should either be NS_URI_SOAP12_FAULT or URI_SOAP12_FAULT_NS (I prefer the latter, or just URI_SOAP12_FAULT). There is no need for "CURRENT_" constants when the value in question only has one possibility (i.e. NS_URI_CURRENT_SOAP_UPGRADE, NS_URI_CURRENT_WSDL_*, etc.). They're just clutter. We should, I think, change "CURRENT" to "DEFAULT" in the cases that do have multiple values, since that's really what it means to have a preferred constant. "Current" implies "the one we're actually using in the code at a particular time", which, since we can support multiple SOAP/Schema versions, is much more dynamic and is expressed by things like the SOAPConstants interface. ELEM is used to mean "XML element", and thus the PROVIDER_* constants don't really fit with ELEM_ prefixes (provider is an attribute value). I'd prefer to leave this off for strings not used as XML elements, so perhaps just PROVIDER_*? The namespaceURI for what you have as QNAME_JAVARPC_PROVIDER (WSDDConstants) should be NS_URI_WSDD_JAVA. What's NS_PREFIX_WSDD? The ALT constants for various URIs - I am under the impression that "http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"; is correct, and "http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema/"; is just invalid. Same for the rest. Why do we want these in there at all? --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sitze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [axis] : Code change across the board > > > It's been suggested that I submit for review the "new" Constants, > WSDDConstants, and XMLType files before I commit them (and > corresponding > changes to many other files): > > > (See attached file: Constants.java) > > (See attached file: WSDDConstants.java) > > (See attached file: XMLType.java) > > > ******************************************* > Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CORBA Interoperability & WebServices > IBM WebSphere Development >
