://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg21946.html
Done under revision #568830
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org
Jean-Sebastien,
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip
Looks like option (B) is the most preferred option with:
- one -1
- five +1
- one more spec compliant
Do we need more technical discussion? or a new [VOTE] thread to close
this issue?
Thanks for a great summary.
I'm happy with the
Done under revision #568830
On 8/22/07, Mike Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien,
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip
Looks like option (B) is the most preferred option with:
- one -1
- five +1
- one more spec compliant
Do we need more technical discussion? or a new
Great summary Sebastien (you were faster then me), looks like option B
is the consensus, and I'd like to give it a try so we could still get
it to the release branch on the next couple days. Please let me know
if anyone has any objections.
On 8/21/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/20/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO application developers shouldn't have to suffer from the
complexity of XML...
How about supporting composites without namespace declarations at all?
I'm trying to
+1 for option [B] alone. Given the fact that we are going to rely more on
tooling to define composites this shouldn't be a problem.
- Venkat
On 8/20/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO application developers shouldn't have to
Hi Ant, just to understand a little better - do you propose we must get our
extensions endorsed by the Specs ?
- Venkat
On 8/20/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/20/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO
Ok sure eventually why not. But I don't think we should wait till that
happens before doing [a].
...ant
On 8/20/07, Venkata Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ant, just to understand a little better - do you propose we must get
our extensions endorsed by the Specs ?
- Venkat
On
Folks,
In some ways, I'm glad I was on vacation while much of this debate
raged!! ;-)
Comments below.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
[A] What we have right now, standard SCA extensions and tuscany
extensions sharing the standard SCA namespace
(B) What IMO is a more correct use of XML
-1 for A. This violates the spec.
+1 for B. Spec compliant, supports validation, and ensures
future proof SCDLs that won't break if Tuscany extension elements
are later adopted by the spec group but with subtle differences.
-1 for C alone. -0.9 for C if done in addition to B. C doesn't
handle
ant elder wrote:
On 8/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
Taking that line of thought and you hit the long thread associated with:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
which is what I
The last comments have been in favour of keeping things as-is so how about
just doing nothing and letting this thread die.
...ant
On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On 8/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO application developers shouldn't have to suffer from the
complexity of XML...
How about supporting composites without namespace declarations at all?
I'm trying to understand all the proposals here, what would be the
side effects of going with your proposal ? This seems like
Luciano Resende wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO application developers shouldn't have to suffer from the
complexity of XML...
How about supporting composites without namespace declarations at all?
I'm trying to understand all the proposals here, what would be the
side effects
:07 PM
Subject: Re: [jira] Closed: (TUSCANY-1053) Use a Tuscany namespace for all
non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
Luciano Resende wrote:
Sebastien wrote :
IMO application developers shouldn't have to suffer from the
complexity of XML...
How about supporting composites without namespace
namespace declarations.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [jira] Closed: (TUSCANY-1053) Use a Tuscany namespace for all
non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053
.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ant elder closed TUSCANY-1053.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
ant elder wrote:
Taking that line of thought and you hit the long thread associated with:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
which is what I was hoping to quietly ignore by just keeping everything in
the one SCA namespace.
...ant
On
On 8/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
Taking that line of thought and you hit the long thread associated with:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
which is what I was hoping to quietly ignore by
/browse/TUSCANY-1053?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ant elder closed TUSCANY-1053.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA
namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non
a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Improvement
.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL
comments :
...this resolution violates the SCA spec.
You are not supposed to go adding stuff to the SCA namespace that is not
approved by the SCA spec process. In particular, no additions to the
sca.xsd or sca-core.xsd are allowed.
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel]
ant elder closed TUSCANY-1053.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Closing as it looks like we've standardized on using the SCA namespace
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira
a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Improvement
Version/s: (was: Java-SCA-M3)
Wish list
There hasn't yet been agreement on how best to achieve this. Pushing out for
now until there is consensus on a solution.
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
Comments inline.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
There are two concrete issues.
Firstly, with the XSD for the namespace spread over so many files, how
does a user set up a tool to validate an XML document? They can add
schemaLocation elements as hints but that is more complex than the
separate
There are two concrete issues.
Firstly, with the XSD for the namespace spread over so many files,
how does a user set up a tool to validate an XML document? They can
add schemaLocation elements as hints but that is more complex than
the separate namespaces. We can produce a single document
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
The C++ runtime allows bindings and component implementation types to
share a common Tuscany namespace and updates to them do not require
an update of the Kernel. We simply load the SCDL XSD files out of
each
On 1/24/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
-1 on the single namespace as it couples together all the
extensions - we would need to create a new version of the
namespace every time any extension changed
Hello,
Not XML schema guru but in the assembly spec don't extension fall in XML schemas
given under any namespace=##other ... and the ##other imply a namespace
other than the sca one ?
ant elder wrote:
On 1/24/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:00 PM,
On Jan 24, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Rick wrote:
Hello,
Not XML schema guru but in the assembly spec don't extension fall
in XML schemas given under any namespace=##other ... and the
##other imply a namespace other than the sca one ?
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Also implementation
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:54 AM, ant elder wrote:
On 1/24/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
-1 on the single namespace as it couples together all the
extensions - we would need to create a new version of
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:54 AM, ant elder wrote:
On 1/24/07, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
-1 on the single namespace as it couples together all the
extensions - we would need to
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
The C++ runtime allows bindings and component implementation types
to share a common Tuscany namespace and updates to them do not
require an update of the Kernel. We simply load the SCDL XSD files
out of each runtime extension
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ant elder reassigned TUSCANY-1053:
--
Assignee: ant elder
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
?
page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
ant elder reassigned TUSCANY-1053:
--
Assignee: ant elder
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
/browse/TUSCANY-1053?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ant elder reassigned TUSCANY-1053:
--
Assignee: ant elder
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
On Jan 23, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
-1 on the single namespace as it couples together all the
extensions - we would need to create a new version of the
namespace every time any extension changed its XML
I prefer a single Tuscany namespace. This
the programming model, samples, and
many test cases.
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053
Use a Tuscany namespace for all non-spec'd Tuscany extensions
-
Key: TUSCANY-1053
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Improvement
44 matches
Mail list logo
