cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <>
Subject Re: Schema Locations
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:02:49 GMT
On 6/4/07, Andrea Smyth <> wrote:
> Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> > Just had one minor piece of feedback on your commit to change the
> > Schema locations. Would you be OK with changing the schema locations
> > to something like:
> >
> >
> >
> > instead of
> >
> >
> >
> > While I like the symmetry between the classpath and the schema
> > location, I see a couple issues:
> > 1. /wsdl/ shouldn't really be in the URI for a spring schema
> > 2. -conf is kind of redundant
> I agree with you on the naming - it's quite awful, and there are way too
> many namespaces (but that's another issue).
> For now,  I would like to use URIs that can a) be derived very simply
> from other information that we have (i.e. their actual location in the
> trunk) and b) where the underlying  schema can potentially be made
> available on the web. See wiki page
> I started
> on that, and on which I want to complete the table.
> If someone wants to change the URI for one schema, name and  location of
> the schema should be changed at the same time to avoid confusion - after
> all the latter is the least work. The real pain is in updating
> references in schemaLocation attributes, not just on cfg files but in
> other schemas and catalog files as well.

Yeah, I like how the locations are symettric with the classpath locations. I
think I'd just like to move our schemas from the schemas/wsdl directories to
the schemas/ directory. I can go ahead and do that if its ok with you.

> 3. I think it might be good to have the version # as we previously
> > discussed in the location. Lets say we change the namespace in our
> > schema for 2.1, then we effectively need to host two schemas at the
> > same location with the current location URI.
> What about redirecton as I suggested in an earlier mail?
> "For reasons outlined below I tend towards not using a version number in
> the URI, but instead adopt the convention that
> contains the schemas for version x.y
> and that directs to the current version. "
> Unless we maintain versions of schemas, bean definition parsers etc. in
> one product version, and IMO this is a real pain, many cfg files become
> unnecessarily invalid.\

OK, I see now what you were proposing - I misunderstood before. Once we move
to 2.1 we can copy 2.0 schemas to schemas/2.0/ and if people want to
strictly stay with that schema they can change their location accordingly.
Sounds good to me!

- Dan

Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions |

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