Folks,
I'm happy with either:
a) Everything in one "SCA"
namespace
or
b) Each binding in its own namespace,
with "blessed" versions in the SCA namespace also
I believe that b) is in effect the approach
suggested for new, initially non standardized bindings
(eg binding.json from the Tuscany project),
which are subsequently standardized.
The mechanics of b) do need investigation,
but I think that at worst a complete repeat of the
definitions in the two namespaces is
the answer.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:
"Michael Rowley"
<>
25/03/2008 21:35
To
"Anish Karmarkar" <>,
<>
cc
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
