Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi Sebastien,
Thanks. Please find my comments inline. Not much though :)
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Venkata Krishnan wrote:
2) Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that you need to set the
targetNamespace of QualifiedIntent.qualifiableIntents, as it looks like
it's already read as a QName from the XML stream (and this QName does
not have to be in the current targetNamespace).
First, I think that the Qualifiable intent needs to be in the current
namespace since I I am not sure and the specs does not mention either,
on
how we could represent a qualified intent whose qualifiable intent
belongs
to a different namespace. So going with the assumption, in this context
the
qualifiable intent needs to be assigned the targetnamspace. Only then
would
it be correctly resolved during the resolution phase.
Then I don't understand this code:
PolicyIntentProcessor:74
qualifiableIntent.setName(getQNameValue(reader,
policyIntentName.substring(0, qualifierIndex)));
which reads a QName from the XMLStreamReader.
Either (a) the qualifiableIntent is always in the target namespace, and
then it's name is defined as an NCName and we shouldn't be trying to
read it as a QName, or (b) the qualifiable intent name is actually
defined as a QName and then it can belong to another namespace.
If I understand it correctly, the policy-xsd defines these names as
QNames, leading me to believe that (b) is the correct option.
Given the context of disussion in this thread (a) seems to be what it should
be. When cleaning up I missed out this line and I will fix it rightaway
:(. But it ends up working because the name is reset with the
targetnamespace later. Why I say (a) is because we'd then have consistency
with all intent names being NCNames. Ofcourse, this means that the
qualifiable intents should also be from the same namespace.
If we allowed intent names to be QNames then (b) would apply and we have the
freedom of having qualifiable intents belonging to a different namespace
than the targetnamespace. But that will get us back to the bunch of issues
that has been discussed in
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg28653.html.
I guess it can't be that qualified intents alone have names that are QNames
and the rest will be NCNames.
Thanks
- Venkat
I'm still not sure I understand, I am assuming that when we read XML
declarations:
- declarations of type <xyz name="anNCName"> get turned into a QName
with ns = targetNamespace, localPart = anNCName
- declarations of type <xyz refToAnotherElement="QName"> just get the
QName as-is, and do not assume that it belongs to the document's
targetNamespace.
But I'm probably missing something as it also seems to make sense to
restrict intent qualifiers to be in the same namespace as their
(qualifiable) parent intent.
A concrete example would help, could you please post a definitions.xml
snippet example here containing a qualifiable intent and qualifiers to
help understand what makes more sense? an NCName or QName?
Thanks!
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
