Hi Dan
On 08/12/11 15:46, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Sergey,
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
For the most part, that's exactly what Johan and I have been doing whenever
possible. There are a couple like Coloc (coloc-feature.xsd) that we've been
able to do that.
The issue is that a bunch of the schemas import the spring schema (like in
core.xsd):
<xsd:import namespace="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-
beans.xsd"/>
and as soon as you do that, you have some level of dependency on spring which
we are trying to NOT have with blueprint. For example, in core.xsd, the
"properties" for the cxf:bus are of type:
<xsd:element name="properties" type="beans:mapType" minOccurs="0">
which is a spring defined schema type. In blueprint, it is:
<xsd:element name="properties" type="beans:Tmap" minOccurs="0">
which would be the blueprint equivalent. Obviously we could just define them
as xsd:anyType or something like we do for the interceptorLists. That
definitely could be considered an option, but that also ruins some of the nice
validation that could occur.
It may also be possible to add some extra types in cxf-beans or something that
will mimic both the blueprint and spring versions of those types, but I'm not
really sure.
Thanks for the above info - I see it can be tricky to get a single
physical schema document for both Blueprint and Spring;
What about having a single target namespace even with one schema used
by Spring & 2nd - by Blueprint, example:
<!-- Spring -->
<xs:xmlns targetNamespace="http://cxf.apache.org/core";
xmlns:tns="http://cxf.apache.org/core";>
<!-- Spring-aware schema -->
</xs:xmlns>
<!-- Blueprint -->
<xs:xmlns targetNamespace="http://cxf.apache.org/core";
xmlns:tns="http://cxf.apache.org/core";>
<!-- Blueprint-aware schema -->
</xs:xmlns>
Sorry if I did not clarify what I was actually after; I thought that if
it could work in principle then we'd be able to experiment under the
hood with various techniques which might let us collapse those 2 schemas
into a single one, etc; and when needed do add
http://cxf.apache.org/blueprint/core (using this ns just as example)
which would point to a schema offering something unique to CXF services
deployed on Blueprint
But not sure if sharing the same target ns can actually work :-)
Cheers, Sergey
Dan
On Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:49:07 AM Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
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-configur
ation-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
