RE: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 8: SCDL artifact resolution underspecified

> Section 12.2.1 "SCA Artifact resolution" [1] indicates there is an SCA

> defined resolution mechanism (imports and exports). Are you

> objecting to

> Henning's proposal for a scaLocation attribute (I don't understand

> Henning's proposal)? Or are you objecting to the location

> attribute on the import element?

> Honestly, I've never quite gotten the point of Issue 8.

I'm not sure I do either but it appears that Henning is concerned

with the performance of using references to QNames which are defined

in artifacts contained in the same contribution. For example,

<implementation.composite name=”foo:BarComposite”/>

Where foo:BarComposite is defined in a file contained in the same

contribution archive.

To help me understand this discussion it would be useful to have a few clarifications.

1. Which attributes of which elements make use of qname values to refer? Could URI references or xpointers be used instead?

2. For the qname prefixes (the part before the ‘:’), where is the defining

relation to a URI found?

3. Is the URI binding that is in scope for a URI of a contribution or of a

targetNamespace of a scdl file or something else entirely?

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html has a good point or two on the topic, such as:

Where there is a compelling reason to use QNames instead of URIs for identification,

it is imperative that specifications provide a mapping between QNames and URIs, if such a mapping is possible

(which I think means to explain how the prefix and URI are associated, at least)

We've implemented this and resolution

performance has not been a major impact. Also, if it does become a

problem, some type of index could be generated when the contribution

archive is generated that would make resolution virtually negligible.

sca-assembly message