[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Q: process category?
The uniqueness of QNames, URIs etc is
undoubtedly a convention, and, as you say, is impossible to enforce “Unless
one has complete control of tools, deployment and run-time”. However we rely on this uniqueness all the time,
precisely because it is defined as a compliance requirement by the specifications
concerned. Why not here? From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@ Satish Thatte wrote:
[Satish Thatte] It is easy to manufacture a unique
QName from the targetNamespace and NCName of the process -- one may claim that
this is in fact implied by the usual semantics of targetNamespaces. [Ten-Hove] This technique would work, but it is a
convention, not a guaranteed property of process definitions. Unless one has
complete control of tools, deployment and run-time, a convention cannot be used
to guarantee this uniqueness property. The name and targetNamespace of
the process must be globally unique. If an existing process is modified, the
name and/or tns must be modified to ensure that the new version of the process
has a unique identity, such that it cannot be confused for the old. I don't particularly like this -- it sounds a lot like
a hack, and makes it sound like we never heard of UUIDs! But personal tastes
aside, does this sound reasonable? |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]