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.
Note:
- 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.
Comments?
-Eric.
|