I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA
portions of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom
binding extensions often has an additional element in the reference:
<tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer"/>
In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the
composite:
<composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0";
xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0";
targetNamespace="http://customer";
name="Consumer">
Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many
schemas for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one
which pulls all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one
of our user or development pages?
Luciano Resende wrote:
XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
extensions XSDs.
There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
schemas, right ?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try to
help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated through
the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; which is an OSOA
specification.
Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly for
extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes validated
via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read and
resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the resolution
phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
