I like Raymond's and Yang's approach and perhaps someone is willing
to propose the standardized way to the spec group? Sebastien, since
you had a bunch of other issues raised against the spec group, do you
want to do that?
Jim
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
I'm leaning the following:
1) Have a well-defined default scheme. I agree with Sebastien that
the SCA spec should spell it out.
2) Allow extensibility to plug in new schemes (for example,
"my:path") if the host platform desires.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Auto discovering WSDL
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I would suggest that we define a system service to provide the
artifact resolving strategy. Then we can supply a default
implementation, for example, resolve the wsdlLocation based on
classpath. The embedded can choose to replace it with its own
more sophisticated resolver (for exmaple, using META-INF/wsdl,
scanning directory, or querying a WSDL repository).
Thanks,
Raymond
Making things pluggable to support all kinds of different schemes
is interesting, but will that break application portability
between different runtimes?
With my application developer hat on, I would expect the SCA
specification to tell me where I'm supposed to write my WSDL and
XSD files and how references from SCDL to WSDL get resolved.
Any thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
