[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Imports with name conflicts via ETSI NFV LS
Hi Thinh, Thanks for pointing this text out. That was actually my belief and what I stated in the adhoc language meeting, i.e. that two imported type definitions with the same type name should
be an error unless the definitions were identical. Best regards, Arturo From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Nguyenphu, Thinh (Nokia - US/Dallas) Hi Chris and others, Per our Thursday TC call, I would like to follow-up our discussion. I would like to clarify the 1st bullet point of âsummary of the discussionâ from Ad-hoc language call meeting note. The bullet should be
âThe general rule is that parsers should flag an error on name conflicts,
when the definition is different with the same nameâ. The rational for this correction is based on the additional requirement from section 3.1.3.1 (see yellow highlighted).
-
Chris: summary of the discussion:
-
The general rule is that parsers should flag an error on name conflicts (i.e., definitions with the same name)
-
Namespaces should be used to solve the name conflict problem.
-
To address the problem of identifying import that are intended to be the same, profiles should be used.
-
Unfortunately, profiles are not supported in 1.3
3.1.3.1 Additional Requirements
Regards, Thinh Thinh Nguyenphu Bell Labs CTO Nokia +1 817-313-5189 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]