ant elder wrote:
Does there really need to be a separate namespace for every
implementation
type? How about something more generic like script implementation
namespace
or just using a single Tuscany namespace for all non-SCA spec'ed
extensions?
...ant
On 1/8/07, Andrew Borley (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Change Ruby extension schema & namespace
-----------------------------------------
Key: TUSCANY-1031
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1031
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Java SCA Common
Affects Versions: Java-M2
Reporter: Andrew Borley
Priority: Trivial
Fix For: Java-M3
See thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10879.html
To harmonize Ruby support across C++ & Java SCA, the element
implementation.rb changes to implementation.ruby and the namespace
http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/rb/1.0 should change to
http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/ruby/1.0
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 for a single Tuscany namespace. I'd prefer
http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
