[jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-180) Clarify/decide how to express portType and port QNames in SCDL

["Michael John Edwards (JIRA)" <tu...@ws.apache.org>]

    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-180?page=comments#action_12378621 ] 

Michael John Edwards commented on TUSCANY-180:
----------------------------------------------

I'd like to ask folks what is wrong with the notation currently defined by the SCA Assembly spec, which follows the WSDL 2.0 spec.

The advantages I see are:

a) We're not inventing anything new here - it simply follows what is laid down by the WSDL 2.0 spec

b) No use of namespaces - hence no need to author the namespace references at the top of the SCDL files

Are there good reasons to choose something else?


Yours,  Mike.

> Clarify/decide how to express portType and port QNames in SCDL
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: TUSCANY-180
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-180
>      Project: Tuscany
>         Type: Bug

>   Components: Specification
>     Versions: M1
>     Reporter: Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>     Assignee: Michael John Edwards
>      Fix For: M1

>
> Several proposals are on the table and have been discussed on the dev list there: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200604.mbox/%3c443ABD13.5040005@apache.org%3e
> - the WSDL 2.0 notation, as described in the current SCA 0.9 spec
> - a "legacy" {ns}localname notation
> - the usual XMLish notation xmlns:p=ns at the top of the SCDL doc or an enclosing scope, and a p:localname notation

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira