RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

 

Simon,

 

Do you envision implementers of the SCA specifications using the interim versions of the different SCA 1.1 specifications produced by the related OASIS TCs?

 

I can see some value in experimenting with the idea of 'both namespaces' during the 1.1 timeframe, but I wonder whether this idea has any practical benefit as such (until after the 1.1 specs go final).

 

-- Sanjay

---

From: Simon Nash [mailto:NASH@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, Apr 25, 2008 7:50 AM
To: OASIS Liaison
Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

I'm puzzled by the first sentence implying agreement to the proposal from the bindings TC, followed by a proposal that is not what the bindings TC asked for.

Specifically, the bindings TC was proposing that the "both" approach should be used for the 1.1 specs.  Binding schemas would be defined in one or more binding-related namespaces, and the same definitions would also be available in the main SCA namespace.  This approach would be in place for 1.1, not post-1.1.

I would like to introduce this approach now, so that TCs who see value in having a different namespace can get their namespace definitions in place before 1.1.

    Simon

Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156  Fax +44-1962-818999

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

15/04/2008 10:37

To	"OASIS Liaison" <opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

Folks,

+1

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>

14/04/2008 17:12

To	Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS Liaison" <opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc	"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Subject	RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL files)

 
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

---

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

---

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