On 13/08/07, David Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 8:33 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] java implementation and interface schema > files > > loaded but not used > > > > Brady Johnson wrote: > > > Does anyone have any insight into why these files are loaded but > never > > > used in TuscanySCA Native: > > > > > > <TuscanySCA Root dir>/xsd/ > > > sca-implementation-java.xsd > > > sca-interface-java.xsd > > > > > > I created a JIRA for this: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1513 > > > > > > Their existence in the project is misleading and implies that > TuscanySCA > > > Native supports Java services. > > > Perhaps these should be removed in M4. > > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > Brady Johnson > > > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > > > Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will you be able to load (and ignore without breaking) a composite > > containing implementation.java and interface.java elements? I'm > thinking > > about scenarios where people share a composite between the two > runtimes, > > with part of it running on the Native runtime and part running on the > > Java runtime. > > > > I guess I'll have the same question for the Java project, we should be > > able to ignore (or just handle with a warning) implementation.cpp and > > interface.cpp in the Java runtime. > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > Won't this still be a problem for other extensions that are provided by > Tuscany Java? For example, implementation.script? Does this imply that > we should copy all of the extension xsd files from Tuscany Java into > Tuscany Native's /xsd/ directory (and vice versa fro Tuscany Java)? > > Is it possible we could have the composite loader ignore (or warn about) > extension types that it doesn't recognize? This would allow it to parse > the composite files, but wouldn't require that our runtime explicitly > recognize every extension type that isn't supported.
I think this is the way to go. > > -- David Haney > -- Chief Architect, Hydra Products > -- Rogue Wave Software > -- http://www.roguewave.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
