On 8/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ant elder wrote: > > Taking that line of thought and you hit the long thread associated with: > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > > which is what I was hoping to quietly ignore by just keeping everything > in > > the one SCA namespace. > > > > ...ant > > > > On 8/3/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Wouldn't this cause breakage in the scenario that I described, where > >> <foo> from Tuscany later turns into <foo> as part of SCA but with some > >> differences? Any SCDLs written to just use plain <foo> would break > >> when Tuscany steps up to support the SCA <foo>. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> ant elder wrote: > >> > >> > >>> How about having the Tuscany namespace extend the SCA one so you can > >>> > >> choose > >> > >>> to use that as the default namespace so as to avoid having to worry > >>> > >> about > >> > >>> all the namespace prefixes? > >>> > >>> ...ant > >>> > >>> I don't really expect to win this debate now that the issue has been > >>> > >> brought > >> > >>> up, had just been hoping it wouldn't come up :) > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I didn't really want to reopen this debate either but I didn't > understand both of your last comments so I guess I'm going to have to > ask some questions... > > Ant, what did you mean by "having the Tuscany namespace extend the SCA > one?"
I'm not actually sure, my xsd is a bit rusty, i vaguely thought there was a way to say something extend another namespace inheriting all the things from it, but a quick search for it now i cant find how to do that, is it not possible? <snip> And also give my opinion: > +0.5 if people want to keep Tuscany extensions in the SCA namespace for > now, hoping that they make it to the SCA spec XSDs at some point I'd be +1 on doing that. The easier we can make things for people trying out Tuscany the better IHMO. ...ant
