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/ThisVersion URI for Schema/WSDL files)
- From: Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:38:33 +0100
Sanjay,
[please note I don't think I have permission
to post to the Liaison SC mailing list, so this message may not appear
there]
Thanks for circulating this. Unfortunately
I find several parts of the statement ambiguous.
"and use the TC specific fine grained namespaces
post 1.1"
Are the fine grained namespaces post
1.1 only used if the TC introduces incompatible changes?
Does the following statement only apply
post 1.1?
"Whenever
an incompatible change is to be made to the schema, a new revision of the
common namespace should be generated"
Does "post 1.1" refers to
some specific single point in time at which all TCs agree to have reached
a 1.1 level?
Given that fine-grained namespaces can
be used post 1.1, why is there a necessity to generate a new revision of
the common namespace? I was under the impression that the fine-grained
namespace could be used and revved for some period of time, until an agreed
point was reached where the updates would be folded back into a new revision
of the common namespace.
So should that statement actually be:
Whenever an incompatible change is to be made within
a TC specific namespace, a new revision of the TC-specific namespace should
be generated.
When the TC wants to update the version
of their schema in the common namespace and lose the TC-specific fine-grained
namespace for a major revision, that falls under the "Whenever
an SCA TC decides to make an incompatible change which affects the common
namespace" part.
Given all the above, I'd like to suggest
the following disambiguation:
For defining elements used in the SCDL file, all SCA
TCs should start by using the common namespace. At a specific point
in time version 1.1 of the common namespace will be finalized. After
that time TCs may elect to use TC specific fine grained namespaces when
any incompatible change is to be made to their schemas. Following
that, whenever an incompatible change is to be made within a TC specific
namespace, a new revision of the TC specific namespace should be generated.
Whenever an TC decides to make an incompatible change which affects the
common namespace, including updating the TC's schemas in the common namespace
and discarding one or more TC specific fine grained 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 TCs.
Regards, Simon
Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com
"Patil, Sanjay"
<sanjay.patil@sap.com>
06/06/2008 10:10
|
To
| "Michael Rowley" <mrowley@bea.com>,
"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
| <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
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
TCs.
[1]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200806/msg00000.htm
l
Thanks,
Sanjay
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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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]