I notice there are a few bindings and implementations that don't appear
to be covered by schemas in the Tuscany master schema list.
tuscany-binding-corba
tuscany-binding-hessian
tuscany-binding-gdata
tuscany-binding-gdata2
tuscany-implementation-jee
From an Eclipse STP tools perspective this means the tools cannot
create and check any these Tuscany options with the STP tools. (Please
let me know if you think there are more).
There are other special binding and implementation "flavors" (such
tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm and tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode)
that I assume are covered by the parent type schema (e.g.
tuscany-implementation-bpel).
What says everyone, is this acceptable to not create these via the
Eclipse STP tools? Or should we work on creating schemas for these
bindings and implementations? Or other?
Ramkumar R wrote:
In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany
namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA
extension are defined in the namespace (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0).
I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword
"tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace.
XSD for Atom binding:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd
Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dan Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
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
