About the schema includes: they don't need to have separate namespaces for that. Actually, you could use includes to avoid the use of namespaces by having a new single schema file that includes all the others you want to use, and then have the combined widget XML files refer to that new schema file.
-David On Jan 2, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Okay, I got the XML parsing errors fixed. It required new schemas. > > If we want to add this feature to the project, we will need two versions of > some schemas (all screen widget xsd files, simple-methods.xsd and > site-conf.xsd). The new versions could include a version number in the file > name, like widget-screen-v2.xsd as an example. > > Adding the version number to the xsd file name also solves another problem - > currently all versions of OFBiz are referencing a single xsd file version. In > the future, as xsd files are changed, they could be given a new version > number and the dependent XML files would be updated to reference them. Or we > could have the version number in the url and put the new schemas in the new > url. > > David suggested using schema includes to share schemas (like for widget > actions). This change could be a first step in that direction - because the > new schemas will have their own namespace. > > I have updated the Jira issue with a new patch so everyone can take a look: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4090 > > Comments and suggestions are welcome! > > -Adrian > > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> wrote: >> --- On Sat, 1/1/11, David E Jones >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> In Moqui I went a different direction >>> and there is no controller.xml file, everything there >> is in >>> the screen definition. >> >> We could do that in OFBiz too. Since the controller.xml >> file supports the <include> element, it would be a >> simple matter to add a <controller> element to the >> compound screen widget file, and then use the controller's >> <include> element to include the compound screen >> widget file. >> >> The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. > > > > >
