[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 24: textual sca:include not sufficient
On Nov 11, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Scott Vorthmann wrote: > > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-24 > > On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:54 AM, Blohm, Henning wrote: > >> TARGET: >> >> Assembly Specification, section "Using Composites through Inclusion" >> >> DESCRIPTION: >> >> SCA's include mechanism for SCDL artefacts is described as a >> textual inlining of the included composite's body into the >> including composite. >> >> That leads to a set of problems: >> >> a) XML name spaces are ignored >> >> An included composite may make use of namespace prefices that >> become meaningless (or change meaning) when considered within the >> including composite. >> >> b) artefact resolution moves to the includer >> >> On the one hand SCDL artefacts may be re-used across contributions >> (see SCA deployment) and SCA's domain concept relies on inclusion >> to implement a cross-contribution assembly mechanism, on the other >> hand many SCDL declarations refer to artefacts that may not be >> resolvable within the includer's resolution scope. >> >> For example, implementation type declarations such as >> <implementation.java/>, <implementation.bpel/>, >> <implementation.spring/> refer to artefacts such as Java classes, >> bpel process descriptions, and application context XML files, that >> may not resolvable across contributions and much less on the domain. >> >> PROPOSAL: >> >> Describe sca:include over the assembly model of SCA rather than a >> textual operation - similarly to how <implementation.composite/> >> is described today. >> >> For example (simplified and using terminology that requires more >> explanation) >> >> All services, references, properties, and component elements of >> the included composite lead to services, references, properties, >> and component elements by the same name (resp.) in the including >> composite. Any other content of the included composite is ignored. >> Resulting component elements are opaque to the includer, that is, >> all artefact resolution required to evaluate the component >> declaration must be performed in the resolution scope of the >> included composite. This algorithm is recursively applied in a >> depth-first traversal. >> >> > "in the resolution scope of the included composite" does that apply to wires and autowire as well? I think the scope of the resolution should be the target composite, particularly at the domain level. Jim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]