Hi Sergey, I think there is a possibility to use one schema that works for both of them, thereby making things a lot simpler. You will lose some degree of strictness in the combined schemas (i.e., certain attributes are available but have no associated semantics and simply ignored when configured in spring or one way or the other). But we can document this divergence in the merged schema's document/annotation elements.
I am planning to take this approach for the ws-rm component. The background to this is tracked at http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/thought-on-spring-and-blueprint-configuration-schemas-tt5052010.html regards, aki 2011/12/8 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>: > Hi > > At the moment we have different namespaces for Blueprint and Spring schemas, > example: > > "http://cxf.apache.org/blueprint/core"; > "http://cxf.apache.org/core"; > > and so on for all other namespaces. > > I'd like to propose to keep a single namespace, example, > "http://cxf.apache.org/core";, etc. > > Spring schemas are located in /schemas resource folders, > and blueprint ones in /schemas-blueprint, so I guess Blueprint and Spring > will know where to look for their schemas. > > IMHO we should do before it is too late, it may be problematic now, but may > be that is what we should do for 2.6 and document it in the Migration guide. > > Or is the idea that in Blueprint CXF might offer some features that won't be > possible in Spring ? That may be of interest but I guess in that case we can > have two namespaces for using in Blueprint: > "http://cxf.apache.org/blueprint/core"; > "http://cxf.apache.org/core"; > > with the former one identifying the schema which say imports the schema > identified by the latter ns and adds some Blueprint centric extensions > > Thanks, Sergey > > -- > Sergey Beryozkin > > Talend Community Coders > http://coders.talend.com/ > > Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
