On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Mike Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > Ram, > > I think it would be wise to compare the process described here with the > words in the OASIS Assembly spec on precisely this point. > > Section 11.2.1 of the Public Review draft of the Assembly Spec says: > > 3468 Where present, artifact-related or packaging-related artifact > resolution mechanisms MUST be used > 3469 by the SCA runtime to resolve artifact dependencies. [ASM12005] The SCA > runtime MUST raise > 3470 an error if an artifact cannot be resolved using these mechanisms, if > present. [ASM12021] > > This says that you should not mix the use of "artifact specific" mechanisms > with SCA artifact resolution mechanisms. Use one or other but never both. > > The question I ask is - why would you want to mix them?? If the artifacts > (such as WSDLs) are there inside one or other contribution, why use > @wsdlLocation at all?? And if you're using @wsdlLocation, why would you > include a copy of the target WSDL in your contribution? And what happens if > the two alternative artifacts are actually different? > > > Yours, Mike. > > > Ramkumar R wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> We had a discuss on this topic (Use of non-SCA Mechanisms for Resolving >> Artifacts) in the month of March under this thread >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05956.html >> >> What we agreed on as a process to follow for the non-SCA mechanism is..... >> >> 1. get artifact location from import/include >> 2. if there is a location then do artifact specific resolution >> 3. retrieve the artifact using the location provided >> 4. if no artifact found look in the current contribution for an >> artifact providing the appropriate namespace >> 5. if not found report an error >> 6. else do sca specific resolution >> 7. use the sca artifact resolution mechanism to find an artifact >> providing the appropriate namespace >> 8. if not found report an error >> >> So going by this process, if the artifact specified in the location >> attribute is not found an error is reported either in Step 5 or 8. >> >> I believe, TUSCANY-2906 has been re-opened with an expectation that, the >> artifacts should be resolved even if the >> location attribute points to an invalid location. I believe that brings >> back the question which had in the past as posted here.... >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06028.html >> >> Now, the question is that, should we allow the artifact (WSDL/XSD) to get >> resolved even if the artifact specified in the location >> attribute is not found anywhere after following the above process? >> >> -- >> Thanks & Regards, >> Ramkumar Ramalingam > >
I think this means that step 4 should be removed from the list (I don't actually think the code does this at the moment). Simon
