I believe that we should respond to the
bindings TC by saying that the liason committee agrees with the “both”
approach that was suggested. I’ll repeat that suggestion here:
- Perhaps it is possible to define
bindings/implementations/etc in their
own namespace, but then also create a overarching
namespace that brings
together "blessed" versions of each
candidate technology. XML Schema
may not have good ways of doing this (I don't
know), but in the
worst-case, the element definitions could be
repeated in a different
namespace.
We also believe that we should start the
process with a “blessed” namespace for SCA version 1.1. However,
as soon as any TC needs to make an incompatible change to an extensibility
element (e.g. binding.xxx) after the completion of SCA 1.1, a new namespace
should be created that will be used specifically for that extensibility point.
At some later time, SCA as a whole will
create a new coarse-grained namespace (e.g. for SCA 1.2) that will include
specific versions of the finer-grained namespaces that have been created since
the 1.1.
These means that, in the short run,
everything should be in the one SCA namespace that has been defined by the
assembly TC.
Michael
From: Mike
Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008
6:27 AM
To: OASIS Liaison
Cc: Anish Karmarkar
Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison]
Namespace for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI
for Schema/WSDL files)
Folks,
I'm
happy with either:
a)
Everything in one "SCA" namespace
or
b)
Each binding in its own namespace, with "blessed" versions in the SCA
namespace also
I
believe that b) is in effect the approach suggested for new, initially non
standardized bindings
(eg
binding.json from the Tuscany project), which are subsequently standardized.
The
mechanics of b) do need investigation, but I think that at worst a complete
repeat of the
definitions
in the two namespaces is the answer.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley
Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21
2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
25/03/2008 21:35
|
To
|
"Anish Karmarkar"
<Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>,
<opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and
other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)
|
|
Good point Anish. I suspect that one of us
was indeed supposed to bring
this up (I don't recall who, if anyone, was
identified). So, how about
me.
Dear Liason Committee,
The Bindings TC would like guidance on the
namespace to use for the
various <binding.xxx> elements that it is in
charge of defining.
Specifically, the question is whether the bindings
should always use the
same namespace as SCA assembly, or whether they
should each use
different namespaces.
The Bindings TC debated this question for a while
at its F2F, but agreed
that the approach taken should follow a generally
agreed approach that
would also apply to all of the extensibility
points in SCA assembly
(such as implementation elements
<implementation.xxx> and interface
elements <interface.xxx>). As such, we
think this is an appropriate
issue for the Liason group to tackle.
Argument Kickstart:
At the F2F, we discussed the pros and cons of a
few approaches.
Each binding gets its own namespace:
- This approach allows each binding definition to
evolve independently
from other binding definitions and independent of
SCA as a whole.
Everything in one "SCA" namespace:
- This approach gives the user of SCA a set of
technologies that are
known to work together. If each
binding/implementation/etc evolved
independently, then the user would be hard pressed
to figure out which
collection of them actually worked together.
- Having one namespace means that there are fewer
prefixes to define at
the top of the various SCDL files (this seemed to
carry less weight than
the previous point).
Both:
- Perhaps it is possible to define
bindings/implementations/etc in their
own namespace, but then also create a overarching
namespace that brings
together "blessed" versions of each
candidate technology. XML Schema
may not have good ways of doing this (I don't
know), but in the
worst-case, the element definitions could be
repeated in a different
namespace.
No decision was made, but it was my impression
that the last of these
approaches carried the greatest appeal, if the
details could be worked
out.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Michael Rowley
Cc: Mike Edwards;
opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Latest/This Version
URI for Schema/WSDL
files
Michael,
Since we are the liaison reps from binding, were
we (or was I) supposed
to do this?
-Anish
--
Michael Rowley wrote:
> +1
>
> I don't think a meeting is necessary for this
one, but I believe that
> the binding TC was looking for input from the
Liason committee
> regarding whether or not the bindings should
be in the SCA namespace,
> a binding specific namespace, or both.
I thought that someone from
> Bindings was going to be formally asking the
Liason committee to
> provide a recommendation on that.
>
> Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this
group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Unless stated
otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales
with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41,
North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU