On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Ramkumar R <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
Hi Ram I don't think there is a good reason for them to be different. It seems that the OASIS spec now adds more detail to the artifact resolution section of the spec but I don't think this added detail means that the behaviour changes. We do though need to run the "step 4" question to ground. So far, in the context of TUSCANY-2906, it seems that the conversation has come down to whether step 4 in our list of steps could be considered to be part of the artifact specific resolution mechanism. It has been pointed out that the artifact specific and sca (imports/exports) mechanism should not be mixed. Sounds sensible as if you were going to rely on the SCA mechanism you would have included an import for the namespace you require. It has also been pointed out that the artifact specific mechanism is extremely flexible and the runtime could decide to look in the current contribution to find artifacts where the location hint doesn't help So on this basis do we summarize this by saying that we take step 4 at face value when it talks about looking in the *current* contribution and include it in the artifact specific resolution process? Simon
