cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: Schema namespaces and public URIs
Date Wed, 30 May 2007 06:53:06 GMT
Hi again,
Also, given your clairifications, if you can let me know which parts of the
configuration clean up you've been working on that'd be great.  I would be
happy to start working on things from either your previous list or this list
later this week, I just don't want to conflict with what you've already
done. Thanks,
- Dan

On 5/29/07, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Sorry that I missed this message the first time around, Bo's recent
> message alerted me to it. Comments are inline...
>
> On 5/22/07, Andrea Smyth <andrea.smyth@iona.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Before we release 2.0 Final  (hopefully with cfg files etc. fixed so
> > that we can enable Spring schema validation:))  is an opportunity to
> > modify and bring consistency into namespaces and public URIs for the CXF
> >
> > schemas.
> > Taking two schemas as an example, we have
> >
> > Location:
> >
> > trunk/rt/frontend/jaxws/src/main/resources/org/apache/cxf/jaxws/spring/jaxws.xsd
> > Target namespace: http://cxf.apache.org/jaxws
> > Public URI (as per spring.schemas):
> > http://cxf.apache.org/schema/jaxws.xsd
> >
> > or
> >
> > Location: trunk/tools/common/src/main/resources/schemas/wsdl/jms.xsd
> > Target namespace: http://cxf.apache.org/transports/jms
> > Public URI (as per spring.schemas): http://cxf.apache.org/transport/jms.xsd
> >
> >
> > Right now, the schemas are not available at their public URI, but long
> > term they should be IMO, and therefore I'd like to see that
> > a) they use at least a common prefix, e.g. schema, after
> > http://cxf.apache.org/ to avoid clashes in d). The first example uses
> > "schema", the second uses no prefix at all, and yet others use "schemas"
> > instead of schema, see the concatenation of all spring.schemas files in
> > CXF below.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that if a schema namespace is
> http://cxf.apache.org/2.0/schemas/jms that should also be a publicly
> available namespace? Or are you just suggesting we standardize on a "schema"
> or "transport" instead of "schemas" and "transports"?
>
>
> b) possibly include a version number or a date in the prefix, i.e.
> > schemas/2.0 or schemas/2007/06 (personally I find version numbers a bit
> > friendlier than dates;  the version number need not be the same for all
> > schemas in a release, it would just happen to be so for the 2.0release).
>
>
> I would think version numbers would be more appropriate as dates won't
> matter so much to users as versions will.
>
> c) all cfg files consistently use these public URIs in their
> > schemalocation attribute
>
>
> d) ideally we can make them available at their public URI
> > Right now this would have to be under   http://incubator.apache.org/cxf/
> > but I assume that after graduation this will change to
> > http://cxf.apache.org. I we want to avoid a needless change upon
> > graduation, we could use http://cxf.apache.org in the public URI
> > already, and tell people that for now that can find any (public,
> > documented) CXF schema by substituting cxf.apache.org with
> > incubator.apache/cxf.
>
>
> Ugh, that is a sticky one. I would prefer our URIs start with
> http://cxf.apache.org/. Why don't I check in with infrastructure (or our
> mentors) and see if we can get a redirect from
> http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/foo.xsd to our incubator site for future
> compatability.
>
> As far as namespaces are concerned, we can use the same, a different or
> > no prefix - but whatever it is it should be used consistently. Using the
> > same prefix as in the URI is probably the simplest solution.
> >
> > A version number or date in the namespace/public URI may look ugly, but
> > could prove very useful,  especially as there is no such thing as "the"
> > big CXF schema, but lots of small schemas instead. And depending on the
> > evolution of their associated modules, they are more or less subject to
> > change in the future.
> >
> > What do people think?
>
>
> So I think all these changes are probably good things.
>
> Are you also proposing that we move to one single namespace for
> everything? Or would we still have a JAX-WS namespace, a WS-A namespace,
> etc??
>
> Also, what about keeping the current namespace registrations around in the
> spring.* files so its easy for users to migrate to new versions. We can add
> a simple line to the AbstractBeanDefinitionParser to check the namespaces (
> i.e. does it start with http://cxf.apache.org/2.0/) and if not, emit a
> deprecation warning.
>
>
> - Dan
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog




-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message