[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Spec/Schema Inconsistencies
I've come across a couple small problems while trying to complete WD 19, and have guessed at appropriate resolutions (subject to review & approval, of course). There may be more like this to be found, as no one has yet made a thorough comparison between the spec, schema and examples. CORE-112 According to 5.2.2.12, PayloadInfo contains @xml:id and @eb:version attributes. Uncertain where a reference to this @id would be useful, as a Signature would point to the payload data itself. A version attribute appears further down, at PayloadInfo/PartInfo/Schema/@version, which seems appropriate. So the one at this level appears to be extraneous. Neither schema nor examples contain these attributes. Proposal: remove both attributes. CORE-113 5.2.2.13 states that eb:PartInfo/Schema/@namespace is REQUIRED, yet it appears neither in the schema nor in examples. Propose to make it OPTIONAL and add it to the schema. Also clarify that eb:PartInfo/Schema/@version is also OPTIONAL (leaving only @location REQUIRED). And calling to your attention to Issue CORE-111 (from my previous message on namespace & versioning): > Messaging/@version > attribute adds no useful information that is not already communicated > via the namespace declaration, so it could be removed. (version="3.0" > is not just a semantic variant of the previous header structure; it is > a completely new schema/namespace.) I propose to remove eb:Messaging/@version, because it needlessly complicates MSH implementations. If the processing semantics of the eb:Messaging element are changed, I would prefer to signify this through a namespace change (either at the eb:Messaging level, or for individual sub-elements, depending on where the change has occurred). The alternative requires building specialized processing into the MSH, to change behavior based on the contents of the @version string. In case this is too controversial, I will prepare drafts both with and without it, so we can choose which variant to send to public review. --Pete Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@sun.com> Join the Open ESB Community <http://open-esb.org/>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]