The last comments have been in favour of keeping things as-is so how about just doing nothing and letting this thread die.
...ant On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ant elder wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > What's the conclusion here? I've seen different opinions from Mike, > Simon, Luciano, Ant, myself. Do we need a vote to decide the next step? > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
