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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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

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

On 6/2/08 conf-call [1], the OpenCSA Liaison Subcommittee resolved the
below issue with the following guideline:

For defining elements used in the SCDL file, all SCA TCs should use the
common namespace, and use the TC specific fine grained namespaces post
1.1. Whenever an incompatible change is to be made to the schema, a new
revision of the common namespace should be generated. Whenever an SCA TC
decides to make an incompatible change which affects the common
namespace, that TC is obliged to inform all of the other SCA TCs, via
the OpenCSA Liaison Subcommittee - and that the Assembly TC is
responsible for coordinating the change where it affects multiple SCA


Co-Chair, OpenCSA Liaison Subcommittee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Rowley [mailto:mrowley@bea.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 22:35 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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_workgr
> oups.php 

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