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?)


Thanks Dale, that helps a lot.

My reasoning is that QNames seem easier to work with than URIs when you're
developing artifacts without tools, and they seem less fragile.

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 
                                       David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,  
             02/11/2008 05:47          <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> 
             PM                                                         cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [sca-assembly] Re: ISSUE 8:     
                                       SCDL artifact resolution            
                                       underspecified  (schema adjustments 
                                       for uniqueness?)                    
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





1. If the intent is that the names of composites be unique within a
targetNamespace, that requirement would be documented.

2. I guess you are wondering whether you could thereby leverage a
validity check on a file, to check on that constraint. I doubt that
tools normally enforce checking over multiple files, and as you point
out, just doing some kind of include over files where composite is the
root element won't yield a valid rooted tree anyhow.

3. I also am pointing out that qnames are usually used where some
guarantee of uniqueness of referent is available. That may tend to count
against the wisdom of using qnames for reference in scdl contributions,
given that you have no way to check on that assumption. URI-references,
given unique URLs for the members of the contribution, might be a better
bet. You could use standard fragments picking out referents by their ID
value and be done with it.

I have had some difficulty understanding why you are bothering with
qname anyway, because it doesn't seem like a clearly applicable device.
Your remark makes me wonder what the attraction really was?

Dale Moberg

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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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





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