You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/17 00:00:10 UTC
Tuscany Composite validation
As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try
to help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated
through the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an
OSOA specification.
Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly
for extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g.
JSONRPC, Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and
attributes validated via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most
of the extensions validated in the validation/resolve code when a
contribution is read and resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice
(validated in the resolution phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong.
Any thoughts?
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
>> tuscany-binding-corba
>> tuscany-binding-hessian
>> tuscany-binding-gdata
>> tuscany-implementation-jee
>> tuscany-binding-ajax
>>
>> What says everyone, is this acceptable to not create these via the Eclipse
>> STP tools? Or should we work on creating schemas for these bindings and
>> implementations? Or other?
>>
>
> +1 for creating the schemas
>
I have created Jiras TUSCANY-2781 to TUSCANY-2785 to track the above
schemas. I also will have a look at the supported syntax and help out
here when I get a chance.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I notice there are a few bindings and implementations that don't appear to
> be covered by schemas in the Tuscany master schema list.
>
> tuscany-binding-corba
> tuscany-binding-hessian
> tuscany-binding-gdata
> tuscany-binding-gdata2
> tuscany-implementation-jee
>
We should not have binding-gdata2 anymore. For the rest, we should
have schemas, either from spec or in tuscany namespace when it's a
tuscany extension.
> From an Eclipse STP tools perspective this means the tools cannot create and
> check any these Tuscany options with the STP tools. (Please let me know if
> you think there are more).
>
> There are other special binding and implementation "flavors" (such
> tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm and tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode) that I
> assume are covered by the parent type schema (e.g.
> tuscany-implementation-bpel).
>
You are right here, there is an SCA specification for the BPEL
Extension, and the schema is available at
"sca-implementation-bpel.xsd". The tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode is
just the runtime pieces based on the ODE BPEL Engine, and
tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm is just a place holder and has
nothing in it.
> What says everyone, is this acceptable to not create these via the Eclipse
> STP tools? Or should we work on creating schemas for these bindings and
> implementations? Or other?
>
+1 for creating the schemas
>
> Ramkumar R wrote:
>>
>> In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany
>> namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA
>> extension are defined in the namespace
>> (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0).
>>
>> I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword
>> "tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace.
>>
>> XSD for Atom binding:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd
>>
>> Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA portions
>>> of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom binding
>>> extensions often has an additional element in the reference:
>>> <tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer
>>> "/>
>>>
>>> In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the
>>> composite:
>>> <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
>>> xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
>>> targetNamespace="http://customer"
>>> name="Consumer">
>>>
>>> Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many
>>> schemas
>>> for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one which
>>> pulls
>>> all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one of our user
>>> or
>>> development pages?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>>
>>>> XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
>>>> ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
>>>> using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
>>>> extensions XSDs.
>>>>
>>>> There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
>>>> are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
>>>> schemas, right ?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and
>>>>> try
>>>>> to
>>>>> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
>>>>> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated
>>>>> through
>>>>> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an OSOA
>>>>> specification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly
>>>>> for
>>>>> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
>>>>> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes
>>>>> validated
>>>>> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
>>>>> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read
>>>>> and
>>>>> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the
>>>>> resolution
>>>>> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
I notice there are a few bindings and implementations that don't appear
to be covered by schemas in the Tuscany master schema list.
tuscany-binding-corba
tuscany-binding-hessian
tuscany-binding-gdata
tuscany-binding-gdata2
tuscany-implementation-jee
From an Eclipse STP tools perspective this means the tools cannot
create and check any these Tuscany options with the STP tools. (Please
let me know if you think there are more).
There are other special binding and implementation "flavors" (such
tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm and tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode)
that I assume are covered by the parent type schema (e.g.
tuscany-implementation-bpel).
What says everyone, is this acceptable to not create these via the
Eclipse STP tools? Or should we work on creating schemas for these
bindings and implementations? Or other?
Ramkumar R wrote:
> In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany
> namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA
> extension are defined in the namespace (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0).
>
> I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword
> "tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace.
>
> XSD for Atom binding:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd
>
> Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA portions
>> of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom binding
>> extensions often has an additional element in the reference:
>> <tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer
>> "/>
>>
>> In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the
>> composite:
>> <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
>> xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
>> targetNamespace="http://customer"
>> name="Consumer">
>>
>> Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many schemas
>> for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one which pulls
>> all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one of our user or
>> development pages?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>>> XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
>>> ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
>>> using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
>>> extensions XSDs.
>>>
>>> There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
>>> are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
>>> schemas, right ?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try
>>>> to
>>>> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
>>>>
>>>> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
>>>> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated
>>>> through
>>>> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an OSOA
>>>> specification.
>>>>
>>>> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly
>>>> for
>>>> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
>>>> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes
>>>> validated
>>>> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
>>>> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read and
>>>> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the
>>>> resolution
>>>> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
Ram and Luciano, Thanks!
Ramkumar R wrote:
>
> In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany
> namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA
> extension are defined in the namespace (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0).
>
> I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword
> "tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace.
>
> XSD for Atom binding:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd
>
> Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dan,
In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany
namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA
extension are defined in the namespace (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0).
I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword
"tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace.
XSD for Atom binding:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd
Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA portions
> of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom binding
> extensions often has an additional element in the reference:
> <tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer
> "/>
>
> In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the
> composite:
> <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
> xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
> targetNamespace="http://customer"
> name="Consumer">
>
> Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many schemas
> for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one which pulls
> all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one of our user or
> development pages?
>
>
>
>
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>> XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
>> ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
>> using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
>> extensions XSDs.
>>
>> There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
>> are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
>> schemas, right ?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try
>>> to
>>> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
>>>
>>> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
>>> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated
>>> through
>>> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an OSOA
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly
>>> for
>>> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
>>> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes
>>> validated
>>> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
>>> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read and
>>> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the
>>> resolution
>>> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
>>> --
>>> Thanks, Dan Becker
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA
portions of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom
binding extensions often has an additional element in the reference:
<tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer"/>
In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the
composite:
<composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"
targetNamespace="http://customer"
name="Consumer">
Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many
schemas for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one
which pulls all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one
of our user or development pages?
Luciano Resende wrote:
> XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
> ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
> using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
> extensions XSDs.
>
> There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
> are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
> schemas, right ?
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try to
>> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
>>
>> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
>> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated through
>> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an OSOA
>> specification.
>>
>> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly for
>> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
>> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes validated
>> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
>> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read and
>> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the resolution
>> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
>> --
>> Thanks, Dan Becker
>>
>
>
>
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Tuscany Composite validation
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours
ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done
using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany
extensions XSDs.
There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you
are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the
schemas, right ?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and try to
> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools.
>
> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and
> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated through
> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0" which is an OSOA
> specification.
>
> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly for
> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC,
> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes validated
> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions
> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read and
> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the resolution
> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts?
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/