Hi John, Your proposal looks good to me, with a few comments:
IIRC contributions don't have a namespace. I'm not sure how to reuse feature composites, as you'll need to configure their components for specific apps, hosts, ip addresses, user ids etc. They're useful though, as examples, templates or palettes that the developer can review before creating his own. But then their namespaces don't matter. Thoughts? -- Jean-Sebastien Sent from my iPhone On May 31, 2011, at 3:31 PM, john pradeep <yehohan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to organize the composite and contribution files for all modules > and thought of the below approach. > > 1. Each SCA contribution corresponding to a cloud platform will have a > specific namespace > *Example:* <contribution xmlns=" > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"; > xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.1"; > xmlns:xmpp="*http://nuvemstandalone*";> > > 2. we will have a composite for each feature with the same namespace as it > is defined in its sca contribution but the name of the composite itself will > indicate the feature > * Example:*<composite xmlns=" > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"; > xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.1"; > *targetNamespace="http://nuvemstandalone"; name="xmpp"*> > > 4. The component/service names within the composites will be Identified with > the same names across all SCA contributions to keep it consistent. > > 5. Since the component names are maintained same across all platforms, the > client will always refer to the same component/service name but will import > the right namespace to choose the contribution (google, standalone etc) > > I haven't tried to import a composite just by its name space in tuscany yet, > but i assume it should be possible? > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > > Regards, > John
