Arthur, +1. I have no problem either way. Just wanted us as a team to make a conscious decision.
thanks, dims On 10/29/05, Arthur Ryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dims, > > I don't think JDK 1.3 support is a requirement for Woden 1.0. The main goal > of Woden 1.0 is to help get the WSDL 2.0 spec finished. If later we get users > who require JDK 1.3 we can assess them best solution. One approach would be > to create our own URI class. > > Perhaps in preparation for that, we could create a Woden URI class and a > subclass, AbsoluteURI. We could simply delegate the implementation now to > java.net.URI, and later if we need to support JDK 1.3, provide an alternate > implementation. > > > On 10/27/05, Lawrence Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Interesting point Dims. I don't think we've discussed the level of the JRE > > that Woden will support. > > > > Does anyone have a problem requiring a 1.4 JRE? > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > > > > Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 10/27/2005 03:59 PM > > > > Please respond to > > woden-dev > > > > > > To [email protected] > > > > cc > > > > > > Subject Re: How to represent xs:AnyURI in Component model? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arthur, > > > > So by default woden will not run on JDK1.3? java.net.URI is not > > present in 1.3 AFAIK. > > > > -- dims > > > > On 10/27/05, Arthur Ryman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > John, > > > > > > I believe java.net.URI is fairly lightweight so I suggest we use that. > > > I know definitely that java.net.URL is very heavyweight and should be > > > avoided. String in not appealing to me since we should ensure that the > > > URI syntax is correct and be absolute (i.e. there is a scheme). > > > > > > On 10/27/05, John Kaputin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A question for Arthur mainly, but any comments welcome... > > > > > > > > Several properties of WSDL 2.0 Components are defined as type xs:AnyURI > > > > and > > > > then constrained further to absolute IRIs. Not sure whether to represent > > > > these in the Component model interfaces as java.net.URI or if String > > > > will > > > > suffice. We discussed this some time back. What are your thoughts? > > > > > > > > Examples cases are: > > > > Binding {type} > > > > InterfaceOperation {message exchange pattern} > > > > InterfaceOperation {style} ... a set of xs:AnyURI, so URI[] or > > > > String[] > > > > Feature and Property {ref} > > > > Endpoint {address} > > > > > > > > > > > > John Kaputin > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
