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 8/3/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't this cause breakage in the scenario that I described, where > <foo> from Tuscany later turns into <foo> as part of SCA but with some > differences? Any SCDLs written to just use plain <foo> would break > when Tuscany steps up to support the SCA <foo>. > > Simon > > ant elder wrote: > > > How about having the Tuscany namespace extend the SCA one so you can > choose > > to use that as the default namespace so as to avoid having to worry > about > > all the namespace prefixes? > > > > ...ant > > > > I don't really expect to win this debate now that the issue has been > brought > > up, had just been hoping it wouldn't come up :) > > > > > > On 8/3/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>PITA is a new one on me. I usually use Google to help me in such > >>cases, but most of the entries near the top of the list are about > >>a kind of bread :-) > >> > >>I don't see this as such a big problem. The average WSDL file > >>seems to contain at least 3 different namespaces. I think XML > >>programmers are quite familiar with the need to define additional > >>namespaces and how to do that. A simple rule that everything > >>from the SCA spec is in the SCA namespace and everything from > >>Tuscany SCA is in the Tuscany SCA namespace will help them to know > >>which namespace they should be using. > >> > >>+1 to the suggestion that we produce extremely good diagnostics to > >>help people who get the namespace wrong. > >> > >>Also +1 to the suggestion that we take Tuscany extensions that we > >>think should be part of the specs to the spec group for their > >>consideration. However, this does not avoid the need for multiple > >>namespaces, because at any point in time we should expect to have > >>some Tuscany extensions to SCA that are not (yet) part of the specs. > >>This actually reinforces the importance of putting Tuscany extensions > >>in a Tuscany namespace, because Tuscany's <foo> might get adopted > >>as SCA's <foo> with subtle differences, and it will then be important > >>for people to be able to write either <tuscany:foo> or <sca:foo> in > >>their SCDL and get the correct semantics. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >>ant elder wrote: > >> > >> > >>>This is a real pity IMHO as it makes the SCDL significantly more > >>>complicated, ugly and error prone, changing this namespace is going to > >> > >>do > >> > >>>nothing to help usability. I know line 2535 in the spec is clear, but > >> > >>the > >> > >>>actual SCA schema supports doing this doesn't it? Could we just ignore > >> > >>line > >> > >>>2535, or propose all the extensions we have as spec proposals, or > >> > >>something, > >> > >>>anything else to avoid this PITA? > >>> > >>>At the very least we'll need to hightlight a change like this very > >> > >>clearly > >> > >>>in the release notes and website doc on all the extensions, and ensure > >>>there's a really explicit and helpful error message produced when you > >> > >>get > >> > >>>the namespace wrong. > >>> > >>> ...ant > >>> > >>>On 8/2/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I have reopened the JIRA and will give it a try... > >>>> > >>>>On 8/2/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>>I agree with Simon's comment - 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. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yours, Mike. > >>>>> > >>>>>ant elder (JIRA) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> [ > >>>> > >>>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/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-spec'd Tuscany extensions > >>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Key: TUSCANY-1053 > >>>>>>> URL: > >>>> > >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1053 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> Project: Tuscany > >>>>>>> Issue Type: Improvement > >>>>>>> Components: Java SCA Assembly Model > >>>>>>> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-Next > >>>>>>> Reporter: ant elder > >>>>>>> Assignee: ant elder > >>>>>>> Fix For: Java-SCA-Next > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Currently Tsucany extensions use SCDL elements is varrious > different > >>>> > >>>>namespaces. There should be a single Tuscany namespace that extensions > >> > >>not > >> > >>>>defined by SCA spec's should use. See > >>>> > >> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > >> > >>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Luciano Resende > >>>>Apache Tuscany Committer > >>>>http://people.apache.org/~lresende > >>>>http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >>>> > >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
