OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Re: ISSUE 8: SCDL artifact resolution underspecified (schemaadjustments for uniqueness?)



Dave,

1) I agree that the concept for definitions files is one of performing a "logical merge" of all the
definitions files.  Uniqueness is then required.

2) For Composites, I assume that within the "resolution space" of a contribution (ie the contribution
itself plus material imported from other contributions) then the Composite name must be unique.
The composite must always have a name - all that we then require is that the name is unique for
a given namespace, within the "resolution space".


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



David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>

11/02/2008 21:44

To
sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
[sca-assembly] Re: ISSUE 8: SCDL artifact resolution underspecified  (schema adjustments for uniqueness?)





I didn't follow how this helps for composites, since they are all in unique
XML instance documents.

It would help within a single sca definitions file (for bindingTypes,
intents, etc).  But even in this case, we need to worry about the presence
of multiple sca definitions documents in the same contribution.  I suppose
one could merge all the sca definitions documents (that are in the same
namespace) into one logical document and then run schema validation over
the logical document.

Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome


                                                                         
            "Moberg Dale"                                                
            <dmoberg@axway.co                                            
            m>                                                         To
                                      "Michael Rowley" <mrowley@bea.com>,
            02/11/2008 12:25          David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,  
            PM                        <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
                                                                       cc
                                                                         
                                                                  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.








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








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]