[help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>]

We added an extension to SCDL to allow the user to import a WSDL
definition that was being used in a <interface.wsdl> element. This also
has the side effect of installing the schemas from the WSDL into the SDO
type system.

This got me thinking what we should also allow the user to import a
schema for SDO by adding an <import.sdo> element (and perhaps stuff like
<import.jaxb> in the future).

Which also got me thinking that one reason for importing an SDO type
would be so that it could be used as the value for a complex property
but that would mean that we would want the import to occur at the top of
the file so that the element for the property value could be parsed into
a type SDO rather than an Any type.

I'd like to change the schema to move the imports closer to the top of
the file (so they can occur before <component> declarations) and add a
todo to support SDO imports.

We should also support <import>s for <componentType> declarations as
they too can use <interface.wsdl>

--
Jeremy

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Ignore that.. I found it :-(

On 07/04/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Where in the source tree is the schema you are using? Is it in spec/... ?
> --
> Pete
>



--
Pete

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

On 07/04/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
If nobody objects, I can move the wsdl.import up in the XSD. I'm in the
middle of changes to this project anyway.

Where in the source tree is the schema you are using? Is it in spec/... ?
--
Pete

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>]

Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Pete Robbins wrote:
>   
>> Is the order of <entryPoint...>s, <component...>s, <externalReference..>s,
>> <wire...>s, <any> defined by the specification? If so then is moving the <
>> import.xxx> location the correct thing to do?
>>
>>     
>
> The order is defined (see the schema for exact details).
>
> We modified the schema to add <import> anyway so I don't think moving it
> further up adds any more problems.
>
>   
>> It seems to me that knowing the types for any complex properties is needed
>> before parsing the files (.module, .fragment etc). Is the handling of
>> complex properties being discussed in the specifiactions group?
>>
>>     
>
> It is under discussion, yes. There is a proposal in for a recursive
> composition model and as part of that some changes have been proposed
> for how properties are defined and set. To my knowledge the inclusion of
> SDO types or WSDL definitions has not yet been discussed.
>
> Whether you need to define the types in advance depends on whether the
> parser is able to hand imports during the parse process. I think
> requiring the user to do it in advance add inconvenience that can be
> avoided. XML-Schema and WDSL both allow imports/includes as part of
> their definition and I think SCDL should be similarly self-contained.
> This makes the parser a little more complex, but that is our problem not
> the user's.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>   
+1 for moving <wsdl.import> up, I think it makes more sense to an app 
developer to list his wsdls at the top of sca.module before using them 
later in the document. I can also think of other use cases where I'd 
like to reuse a number of wsdls in a jar for example and package in that 
jar an sca.fragment file with wsdl.imports for them. So I should be able 
to reference a wsdl imported in an x.fragment file from other fragments 
in the same module or sca.module itself.

If nobody objects, I can move the wsdl.import up in the XSD. I'm in the 
middle of changes to this project anyway.

-- 
Jean-Sebastien

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

>
> The order is defined (see the schema for exact details).
>
> We modified the schema to add <import> anyway so I don't think moving it
> further up adds any more problems.


I thought that was covered by the <any..> in the spec schema so you're not
"breaking" the spec by including the <import.xxx> where you currently have
it.

> It seems to me that knowing the types for any complex properties is needed
> > before parsing the files (.module, .fragment etc). Is the handling of
> > complex properties being discussed in the specifiactions group?
> >
>
> It is under discussion, yes. There is a proposal in for a recursive
> composition model and as part of that some changes have been proposed
> for how properties are defined and set. To my knowledge the inclusion of
> SDO types or WSDL definitions has not yet been discussed.
>
> Whether you need to define the types in advance depends on whether the
> parser is able to hand imports during the parse process. I think
> requiring the user to do it in advance add inconvenience that can be
> avoided. XML-Schema and WDSL both allow imports/includes as part of
> their definition and I think SCDL should be similarly self-contained.
> This makes the parser a little more complex, but that is our problem not
> the user's.


Agreed but (you'll like this...) because we use SDO to load/parse the
assembly artifacts we'll have to do a pre-parse to pull out the types.
Hmmm... why don't we write our own loader using... um, er. Stax?

Anyho, I have no objection to extending the spec schema and if we need to
alter the schema we need to feed that back to the spec. Maybe it's a
<types>
 <schema...>

as in wsdl or an extensible <import.xxxxx >

--
Pete

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>]

Pete Robbins wrote:
> Is the order of <entryPoint...>s, <component...>s, <externalReference..>s,
> <wire...>s, <any> defined by the specification? If so then is moving the <
> import.xxx> location the correct thing to do?
> 

The order is defined (see the schema for exact details).

We modified the schema to add <import> anyway so I don't think moving it
further up adds any more problems.

> It seems to me that knowing the types for any complex properties is needed
> before parsing the files (.module, .fragment etc). Is the handling of
> complex properties being discussed in the specifiactions group?
> 

It is under discussion, yes. There is a proposal in for a recursive
composition model and as part of that some changes have been proposed
for how properties are defined and set. To my knowledge the inclusion of
SDO types or WSDL definitions has not yet been discussed.

Whether you need to define the types in advance depends on whether the
parser is able to hand imports during the parse process. I think
requiring the user to do it in advance add inconvenience that can be
avoided. XML-Schema and WDSL both allow imports/includes as part of
their definition and I think SCDL should be similarly self-contained.
This makes the parser a little more complex, but that is our problem not
the user's.

--
Jeremy

Re: [help wanted] Moving position of elements in SCDL

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Is the order of <entryPoint...>s, <component...>s, <externalReference..>s,
<wire...>s, <any> defined by the specification? If so then is moving the <
import.xxx> location the correct thing to do?

It seems to me that knowing the types for any complex properties is needed
before parsing the files (.module, .fragment etc). Is the handling of
complex properties being discussed in the specifiactions group?


On 07/04/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We added an extension to SCDL to allow the user to import a WSDL
> definition that was being used in a <interface.wsdl> element. This also
> has the side effect of installing the schemas from the WSDL into the SDO
> type system.
>
> This got me thinking what we should also allow the user to import a
> schema for SDO by adding an <import.sdo> element (and perhaps stuff like
> <import.jaxb> in the future).
>
> Which also got me thinking that one reason for importing an SDO type
> would be so that it could be used as the value for a complex property
> but that would mean that we would want the import to occur at the top of
> the file so that the element for the property value could be parsed into
> a type SDO rather than an Any type.
>
> I'd like to change the schema to move the imports closer to the top of
> the file (so they can occur before <component> declarations) and add a
> todo to support SDO imports.
>
> We should also support <import>s for <componentType> declarations as
> they too can use <interface.wsdl>
>
> --
> Jeremy
>



--
Pete