Should we consider including the non-SCA resolution mechanism as part of the 2.x code base same as what we have in 1.x code ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Ramkumar R <[email protected]> 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 > -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
