[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ISSUE 8: SCDL artifact resolution underspecified (schema adjustments for uniqueness?)
Michael Rowley
states I believe that SCA definitions
(composites, binding types, intents, etc) should all be unique within a single
“contribution context”, by which I mean a contribution and the
exported definitions of all of its dependent contributions. If others
agree, I’ll add that text. Dale Moberg>> WSDL
and also schema enforce uniqueness for named things that they intend to
reference by qnames. For example, WSDL 1.1 uses the key constraint ·
(unique) the Identity-constraint definition asserts uniqueness, with respect to
the content identified by [selector],
of the tuples resulting from evaluation of the [fields]
XPath expression(s). ·
(key) the Identity-constraint definition asserts uniqueness as for unique. key
further asserts that all selected content actually has such tuples. as follows: <xs:element name="definitions" type="wsdl:tDefinitions" >
<xs:key name="message" >
<xs:selector xpath="wsdl:message" />
<xs:field xpath="@name" />
</xs:key>
<xs:key name="portType" >
<xs:selector xpath="wsdl:portType" />
<xs:field xpath="@name" />
</xs:key>
<xs:key name="binding" >
<xs:selector xpath="wsdl:binding" />
<xs:field xpath="@name" />
</xs:key>
<xs:key name="service" >
<xs:selector xpath="wsdl:service" />
<xs:field xpath="@name" />
</xs:key>
<xs:key name="import" >
<xs:selector xpath="wsdl:import" />
<xs:field xpath="@namespace" />
</xs:key> </xs:element> While this will only enforce uniqueness
of named component, er thing, within the “targetNamespace”, it
might be useful to add the appropriate constraints to the scdl schemas,
especially if you add in the Assembly specification, a requirement for uniqueness
of named scdl things that are to be referenced by qnames. For XML Schema and WSDL definitions that
are found by QNames, I think they can be ambiguous, but we can use the standard
__Location attributes. I think that should cover the practical issues
with existing badly behaved artifacts. I don’t know what to do about Java.
I’m inclined to continue to say very little. We currently say
that “the installed contribution provides the context” in which
fully qualified classnames are resolved, but it doesn’t say _how_ they are resolved (in fact it says
there may be multiple ways). I think we should continue along those
lines. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]