namespace targets

["Cabrera, Alan" <Al...@reuters.com>]

Since we're talking about XML, have we decided on the issue of namespace
targets?  Am I the only one who thinks that modifying Sun's elements and
putting them back into Sun's namespace is a bad idea?  If I am, then why is
this a non-issue?
 
 
Regards,
Alan
 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------- 
      Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com 

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit <http://www.reuters.com/messaging> 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual sender,
except  where  the sender specifically states them to be the views of The
Reuters Group.

Re: namespace targets

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Cabrera, Alan wrote:
> Since we're talking about XML, have we decided on the issue of namespace
> targets?  Am I the only one who thinks that modifying Sun's elements and
> putting them back into Sun's namespace is a bad idea?  If I am, then why is
> this a non-issue?

	I'm with you, brother!

	Among other things, XMLBeans barfed complaining that the
"geronimo-xxx" DDs duplicated elements in the "xxx" DDs.  (i.e. we declare
"enterprise-beansType" the type and "enterprise-beans" the element in the
J2EE namespace in both ejb-jar_2_1.xsd and geronimo-ejb-jar.xsd).  I think
it was justified.  One of the Geronimo DDs is already in its own
namespace, and I think the rest should follow.

	We also need to solve the MxN issue of Geronimo releases and J2EE 
versions.  Which is to say, if our Geronimo DD extends the J2EE DD, it has 
to be different for J2EE 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, and I think that in order to 
pass the compatibility tests we need to eventually support all 3.  Plus, 
as major Geronimo releases come and go (and presumably add or alter 
features and thus DD elements), we need to distinguish the schema sets for 
each release.

	Though, perhaps we can always require the Geronimo DDs to be
written for the most current J2EE release.  So even if you're deploying an
EJB 1.1 EJB JAR, you'd use a "J2EE 1.4" geronimo-ejb-jar.xml DD, and we'd
just populate any required elements or attributes that were not present in
the older ejb-jar.xml (the mandatory "version" springs to mind).  That way
we'd avoid distinguishing based on J2EE versions, and only distinguish
based on Geronimo versions.

	If we go that way, then we have three options for the namespaces
and file names (example for Geronimo version 1.0):

Namespace: http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/schema/j2ee 
   Schema: geronimo-ejb-jar_1_0.xsd

Namespace: http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/schema/j2ee/1.0
   Schema: geronimo-ejb-jar.xsd

Namespace: http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/schema/j2ee/1.0
   Schema: geronimo-ejb-jar_1_0.xsd

	I'd personally prefer one of the latter two, if for no other
reason that where we started the whole conversation, avoiding having
multiple files in the same namespace define the same elements.

Aaron