commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <>
Subject RE: [HiveMind] nested schemas
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:28:44 GMT
The act of assigning an id to a <schema> is, in effect, a promise on the part of the
developer that
the <schema> (and the Java objects assembled from contributions to that schema) are
stable enough
for others to reuse.

In the case that no id is provided, it may be an oversight, or it may be that the Java objects
not reusable.

Can you give me reasonable examples of why you think this change is necessary? To date, in
everything really has been driven by real experience (generally, anti-patterns in other software,
but still).

Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Essl [] 
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:07 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [HiveMind] nested schemas
> Thanks for the hint on schema-id!
> I've added it now. Checking and complaining early :).
> I removed the configuration-id and service-id atts and have just 
> schema-id.
> However I still want to access schemas even if they don't 
> provide an id. 
> Therefore in my current implementation I give each schema 
> which has no id 
> set a default id. For configuration schemas 'c:'+config-id, 
> for service 
> schemas 's:'+service-id. (This ids can also be used in 
> <schema id-ref=""> 
> ).
> What do you think of that, is this too much change?
> Thanks,
> Chris
> -- 
> Christian Essl 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message