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: Proposal to resolve issues 57, 58, and 59

Proposed that each specification (ws, jms, jca) adds a section 1.4 - Naming Conventions.

The text of that section as follows (between the two line breaks):

This specification follows some naming conventions for artifacts defined by the specification.  In addition to the conventions defined by section 1.3 of the Assembly [SCA-Assembly] specification, this specification adds one additional convention:
  • For the values of XML Schema elements or attributes defined in this specification, the values follow the same convention as the names of intents in the Assembly specification.  If the value is of type QName, the local part of the QName value follows the same convention as names of intents.

  • I extended the text to include the values of both attributes and elements.  I noticed that the JCA specification defines a resAuth element with a choice.  Seems inconsistent to treat element and attribute values differently.
  • binding.jms/@correlationSheme has QNames for values - so I extended the description above to encompass the local part of QNames.
  • If I'm feeling very pendantic, should I point out that the element names binding.jms, binding.ws, and binding.sca don't follow the naming conventions.  Nah, I wouldn't want to do that.
You may note that I've sidestepped the issue completely of whether it should be "jmsConnectionFactory" or "JMSConnectionFactory" or "JmsConnectionFactory" by delegating this question to how "intents" are named.



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