Luciano Resende wrote:
The targetNameSpace were only added on the Calculator and Chat
samples, as suggested on the JIRA 1330. The other changes were merely
cosmetic (such as alignments) or adding missing headers on some
composite files.
What's the suggestion here ? To remove the targetNamespace from the
Calculator samples ?
Umm, sheepish grin.....
This has revealed an erratum in the spec. The Assembly spec contradicts
itself by saying that the targetNamespace attribute on a composite is
optional (line 1033) but in the XSD and in the pseudo-schema, it says
that it is required.
Oh well, I'll raise this with the spec group and get a resolution....
My own opinion is that targetNamespace is essential only if there is a
desire to share the composite between contributions, since then there
must be a means to find the composite from a "remote" place. However,
other spec team members may prefer the "required" approach to avoid
errors....
I certainly was arguing to remove the targetNamespace from the samples,
since it had no use (didn't show anything useful in terms of those samples).
On 7/19/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
I tend to agree with Ant. The namespace gets necessary once we get into
inter-contribution sharing of artifacts and then the namespace is
essential, but I dont think it is necessary or useful in the simpler
examples.
I DO think we need to add the XSD location for the SCA namespace,
however - this is useful for tooling using the composite files, for
example. This is covered by JIRA 1443.
Yours, Mike.
ant elder wrote:
> Do we really need these, line 1033 of the assembly spec says the
> targetNamespace is optional, and the samples don't use the sample
> namespace? As they're samples isn't it good to keep the XML as bare
and
> simple as possible?
>
> ...ant
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
