Simon,
Do you envision implementers of the SCA specifications
using the interim versions of the different SCA 1.1 specifications produced by
the related OASIS TCs?
I can see some value in experimenting with the idea of
'both namespaces' during the 1.1 timeframe, but I wonder whether this
idea has any practical benefit as such (until after the 1.1 specs go
final).
-- Sanjay
From: Simon Nash [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, Apr 25, 2008 7:50 AM
To: OASIS
Liaison
Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and
other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)
I'm puzzled by the first sentence
implying agreement to the proposal from the bindings TC, followed by a
proposal that is not what the bindings TC asked for.
Specifically, the bindings TC was proposing that the
"both" approach should be used for the 1.1 specs. Binding schemas would
be defined in one or more binding-related namespaces, and the same definitions
would also be available in the main SCA namespace. This approach would
be in place for 1.1, not post-1.1.
I would like to introduce this approach now, so that TCs who see value
in having a different namespace can get their namespace definitions in place
before 1.1.
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM
Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel.
+44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
Mike
Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
15/04/2008 10:37
To
"OASIS Liaison"
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace
for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version
URI for Schema/WSDL files)
Folks,
+1
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"
<>
14/04/2008 17:12
To
Mike
Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS Liaison"
<>
cc
"Anish Karmarkar"
<>
Subject
RE: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace
for bindings and other extension points (was: Latest/This Version
URI for Schema/WSDL files)
I believe that
we should respond to the bindings TC by saying that the liason committee
agrees with the “both” approach that was suggested. I’ll repeat that
suggestion here:
- 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.
We also believe that we should start the process with
a “blessed” namespace for SCA version 1.1. However, as soon as any TC
needs to make an incompatible change to an extensibility element (e.g.
binding.xxx) after the completion of SCA 1.1, a new namespace should be
created that will be used specifically for that extensibility
point.
At some later time, SCA as a whole will create a new coarse-grained
namespace (e.g. for SCA 1.2) that will include specific versions of the
finer-grained namespaces that have been created since the 1.1.
These means
that, in the short run, everything should be in the one SCA namespace that has
been defined by the assembly TC.
Michael
From: Mike Edwards
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008
6:27 AM
To: OASIS Liaison
Cc: Anish
Karmarkar
Subject: Re: [opencsa-liaison] Namespace for bindings and
other extension points (was: Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL
files)
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
-----Original
Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Michael Rowley
Cc: Mike
Edwards;
Subject: Re:
[opencsa-liaison] Latest/This Version URI for
Schema/WSDL
files
Michael,
Since we are the liaison reps from
binding, were we (or was I) supposed
to do
this?
-Anish
--
Michael Rowley wrote:
> +1
>
> I don't think a meeting is necessary for this one, but I believe that
> the binding TC was looking for input from the Liason committee
> regarding whether or not the bindings should be in the SCA namespace,
> a binding specific namespace, or both. I thought that someone
from
> Bindings was going to be formally asking the Liason committee to
> provide a recommendation on that.
>
>
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM
United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM
United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM
United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
