On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 >>>>> [1] >>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas? >>>>> >>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema >>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the >>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223 >>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd >>>>> [3] >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -- >>>>> Jean-Sebastien >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Sebastien >>>> >>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's >>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either >>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions. >>>> >>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new >>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where >>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS >>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also. >>>> >>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest >>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back >>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not >>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I >>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment >>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have >>>> thoughts? >>>> >>> >>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues >>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by >>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing >>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give >> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small >> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema >> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the >> next few days and report back here on the effect. >> > > I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd > but that gives the following: > > org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig: > "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and > WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912";] (or > elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle > Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would > be created for those two particles. > > I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does > anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated > changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one? > > ...ant >
Hi Ant Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the one we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the remaining xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to have a conversation with OASIS. Which test were you running when you see the failure? Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
