On 09/06/2014 18:15, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi Sergei,
I am also a bit concerned about autocomplete feature actively used in IDEs
(mentioned by Dan). Keeping unsupported element in schema can be a bit
confusing because of that.
Therefore if handling the client in the old namespace via the
Hi
On 12/06/14 07:20, Jim Talbut wrote:
On 09/06/2014 18:15, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi Sergei,
I am also a bit concerned about autocomplete feature actively used in
IDEs (mentioned by Dan). Keeping unsupported element in schema can be
a bit confusing because of that.
Therefore if handling the
Hi Sergei,
I am also a bit concerned about autocomplete feature actively used in IDEs
(mentioned by Dan). Keeping unsupported element in schema can be a bit
confusing because of that.
Therefore if handling the client in the old namespace via the transformation
feature will be too complicated
Hi Sergey,
Maybe, I am not getting the down side of option 1 right. Option 1
means, the schema contains some definitions that are no longer used. I
don't know if this is really bad. A component can decide which part to
implement and which part to ignore, no?
The down side of option 3 is that you
Hi Aki,
thanks for the comments,
On 06/06/14 16:32, Aki Yoshida wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Maybe, I am not getting the down side of option 1 right. Option 1
means, the schema contains some definitions that are no longer used. I
don't know if this is really bad. A component can decide which part to
2014-06-06 17:44 GMT+02:00 Sergey Beryozkin sberyoz...@gmail.com:
Hi Aki,
thanks for the comments,
On 06/06/14 16:32, Aki Yoshida wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Maybe, I am not getting the down side of option 1 right. Option 1
means, the schema contains some definitions that are no longer used. I
On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Sergey Beryozkin sberyoz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aki,
thanks for the comments,
On 06/06/14 16:32, Aki Yoshida wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Maybe, I am not getting the down side of option 1 right. Option 1
means, the schema contains some definitions that are no longer used.
Hi Dan
On 06/06/14 17:14, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Sergey Beryozkin sberyoz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Aki,
thanks for the comments,
On 06/06/14 16:32, Aki Yoshida wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Maybe, I am not getting the down side of option 1 right. Option 1
means, the schema
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Sergey Beryozkin sberyoz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan
On 06/06/14 17:14, Daniel Kulp wrote:
We *might* be able to get 3.x to handle the client in the old namespace as
well via the transformation feature. During the parsing of the element
(either spring or
