Hi Aki
On 08/12/11 11:23, Aki Yoshida wrote:
Hi Sergey,
I think there is a possibility to use one schema that works for both
of them, thereby making things a lot simpler. You will lose some
degree of strictness in the combined schemas (i.e., certain attributes
are available but have no associated semantics and simply ignored when
configured in spring or one way or the other). But we can document
this divergence in the merged schema's document/annotation elements.
I am planning to take this approach for the ws-rm component. The
background to this is
tracked at
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/thought-on-spring-and-blueprint-configuration-schemas-tt5052010.html
Thanks for this link. I think it can be even up to a given module to
decide which strategy to follow; having a single schema to be used in
Spring and Blueprint is an option,
I'd still consider such a single schema being equally useful in both
cases and then if really needed have say a Blueprint specific schema
adding something new to the shared one;
There was some interest in CXF supporting CDI, I'm not sure if the
developers who volunteered to work on that still do anything or not :-),
but if it were to happen at some stage then the jaxrs frontend at least
would have 'problems' :-) with a single schema only case, though it is a
bit hypothetic at this stage.
Personally I'd be happy at this stage if we could agree that CXF schemas
will have, when possible a common namespace to be shared between Spring
& Blueprint; it would be the next step then how to realize that at the
lower level at per-module basis, for example, using either of the 4
options listed in your email or some other approach
Cheers, Sergey
regards, aki
2011/12/8 Sergey Beryozkin<sberyoz...@gmail.com>:
Hi
At the moment we have different namespaces for Blueprint and Spring schemas,
example:
"http://cxf.apache.org/blueprint/core";
"http://cxf.apache.org/core";
and so on for all other namespaces.
I'd like to propose to keep a single namespace, example,
"http://cxf.apache.org/core";, etc.
Spring schemas are located in /schemas resource folders,
and blueprint ones in /schemas-blueprint, so I guess Blueprint and Spring
will know where to look for their schemas.
IMHO we should do before it is too late, it may be problematic now, but may
be that is what we should do for 2.6 and document it in the Migration guide.
Or is the idea that in Blueprint CXF might offer some features that won't be
possible in Spring ? That may be of interest but I guess in that case we can
have two namespaces for using in Blueprint:
"http://cxf.apache.org/blueprint/core";
"http://cxf.apache.org/core";
with the former one identifying the schema which say imports the schema
identified by the latter ns and adds some Blueprint centric extensions
Thanks, Sergey
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
