You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/08/08 09:03:23 UTC
Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Is there a pluggable way of adding extension scheme's so that SCDL
validation doesn't get errors? Right now we add the non-OASIS tuscany
extensions explicitly to the assembly-xsd module, but thats not going
to be possible for others trying to write their own extensions outside
of Tuscany. It doesn't look like there is, am i missing it? Otherwise
isn't this something that needs be added?
...ant
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:26 PM, ant elder<an...@apache.org> wrote:
> RIght. I guess i was wondering if we should add a similar restriction
> to the tuscany namespace as the sca one has, so if there isn't a
> schema contributed to the tuscany namespace for the extension it fails
> instead of carrying on ok.
>
> ...ant
>
I think that would be OK if then elements in any other namspace
(neither Tuscany or OASIS) were still allowed. Would help with
confusion if people type Tuscany namespaces elements incorrectly.
Simon
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
RIght. I guess i was wondering if we should add a similar restriction
to the tuscany namespace as the sca one has, so if there isn't a
schema contributed to the tuscany namespace for the extension it fails
instead of carrying on ok.
...ant
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you add <tuscany:binding.foo> under the <composite> element? If so, the
> SCA schema allows that:
>
> <complexType name="Composite">
> <complexContent>
> <extension base="sca:CommonExtensionBase">
> <sequence>
> <element ref="sca:include" minOccurs="0"
> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> <choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
> <element name="service" type="sca:Service"/>
> <element name="property" type="sca:Property"/>
> <element name="component" type="sca:Component"/>
> <element name="reference" type="sca:Reference"/>
> <element name="wire" type="sca:Wire"/>
> </choice>
> <any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> </sequence>
> ...
>
> Any namespace other than the "sca" one is allowed.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:35 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>
>> Thanks, I've tried that with the jsonp binding and its all working well.
>>
>> There is still the issue of unknown elements in the tuscany namespace,
>> so adding <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a composite still does not cause
>> any schema validation errors, which it probably should.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm adding the support to aggregate the XSDs by TNS and resolve
>>> xsd:import
>>> without schemaLocation too. It will enable the schema extensions. I'll
>>> check
>>> in the fix when the build is successful.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:17 AM
>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>>
>>>> Ok cool that sounds good. But there's still something else going on
>>>> with the tuscany schema's that i've not tracked down as there's no
>>>> validation errors even without any jsonp schema at all, and also if i
>>>> add <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a testcase composite the testcase still
>>>> runs fine its only when using the sca namespace like <sca:binding.foo
>>>> /> that the testcase fails.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
>>>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
>>>>> assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the
>>>>> other
>>>>> is binding-jsonp.xsd.
>>>>>
>>>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces.
>>>>> When
>>>>> the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
>>>>> tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
>>>>> binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can fix the problem as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace
>>>>> first
>>>>> and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same
>>>>> namespace,
>>>>> then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Raymond
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
>>>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can plug it in using
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>>>>>>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource
>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>> might need to tweak the following method so that
>>>>>>> xsd:import/xsd:include
>>>>>>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>>>>>>> String, String, String, String)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
>>>>>> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
>>>>>> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
>>>>>> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
>>>>>> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
>>>>>> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Did you add <tuscany:binding.foo> under the <composite> element? If so, the
SCA schema allows that:
<complexType name="Composite">
<complexContent>
<extension base="sca:CommonExtensionBase">
<sequence>
<element ref="sca:include" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element name="service" type="sca:Service"/>
<element name="property" type="sca:Property"/>
<element name="component" type="sca:Component"/>
<element name="reference" type="sca:Reference"/>
<element name="wire" type="sca:Wire"/>
</choice>
<any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
...
Any namespace other than the "sca" one is allowed.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:35 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
> Thanks, I've tried that with the jsonp binding and its all working well.
>
> There is still the issue of unknown elements in the tuscany namespace,
> so adding <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a composite still does not cause
> any schema validation errors, which it probably should.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm adding the support to aggregate the XSDs by TNS and resolve
>> xsd:import
>> without schemaLocation too. It will enable the schema extensions. I'll
>> check
>> in the fix when the build is successful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:17 AM
>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>
>>> Ok cool that sounds good. But there's still something else going on
>>> with the tuscany schema's that i've not tracked down as there's no
>>> validation errors even without any jsonp schema at all, and also if i
>>> add <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a testcase composite the testcase still
>>> runs fine its only when using the sca namespace like <sca:binding.foo
>>> /> that the testcase fails.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
>>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
>>>> assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the
>>>> other
>>>> is binding-jsonp.xsd.
>>>>
>>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces.
>>>> When
>>>> the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
>>>> tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
>>>> binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
>>>>
>>>> We can fix the problem as follows:
>>>>
>>>> For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace
>>>> first
>>>> and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same
>>>> namespace,
>>>> then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Raymond
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
>>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can plug it in using
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>>>>>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource
>>>>>> name.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> might need to tweak the following method so that
>>>>>> xsd:import/xsd:include
>>>>>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>>>>>> String, String, String, String)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
>>>>> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
>>>>> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
>>>>> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
>>>>> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
>>>>> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
Thanks, I've tried that with the jsonp binding and its all working well.
There is still the issue of unknown elements in the tuscany namespace,
so adding <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a composite still does not cause
any schema validation errors, which it probably should.
...ant
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm adding the support to aggregate the XSDs by TNS and resolve xsd:import
> without schemaLocation too. It will enable the schema extensions. I'll check
> in the fix when the build is successful.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>
>> Ok cool that sounds good. But there's still something else going on
>> with the tuscany schema's that i've not tracked down as there's no
>> validation errors even without any jsonp schema at all, and also if i
>> add <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a testcase composite the testcase still
>> runs fine its only when using the sca namespace like <sca:binding.foo
>> /> that the testcase fails.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
>>> assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the
>>> other
>>> is binding-jsonp.xsd.
>>>
>>> SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces.
>>> When
>>> the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
>>> tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
>>> binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
>>>
>>> We can fix the problem as follows:
>>>
>>> For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace
>>> first
>>> and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same
>>> namespace,
>>> then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can plug it in using
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>>>>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name.
>>>>> We
>>>>> might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
>>>>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>>>>> String, String, String, String)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
>>>> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
>>>> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
>>>> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
>>>> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
>>>> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I'm adding the support to aggregate the XSDs by TNS and resolve xsd:import
without schemaLocation too. It will enable the schema extensions. I'll check
in the fix when the build is successful.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:17 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
> Ok cool that sounds good. But there's still something else going on
> with the tuscany schema's that i've not tracked down as there's no
> validation errors even without any jsonp schema at all, and also if i
> add <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a testcase composite the testcase still
> runs fine its only when using the sca namespace like <sca:binding.foo
> /> that the testcase fails.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
>> SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
>> assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the
>> other
>> is binding-jsonp.xsd.
>>
>> SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces.
>> When
>> the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
>> tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
>> binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
>>
>> We can fix the problem as follows:
>>
>> For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace
>> first
>> and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same
>> namespace,
>> then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can plug it in using
>>>>
>>>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>>>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name.
>>>> We
>>>> might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
>>>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>>>> String, String, String, String)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
>>> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
>>> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
>>> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
>>> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
>>> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>
>>
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
Ok cool that sounds good. But there's still something else going on
with the tuscany schema's that i've not tracked down as there's no
validation errors even without any jsonp schema at all, and also if i
add <tuscany:binding.foo /> to a testcase composite the testcase still
runs fine its only when using the sca namespace like <sca:binding.foo
/> that the testcase fails.
...ant
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
> SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
> assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the other
> is binding-jsonp.xsd.
>
> SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces. When
> the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
> tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
> binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
>
> We can fix the problem as follows:
>
> For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace first
> and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same namespace,
> then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
>
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can plug it in using
>>>
>>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name.
>>> We
>>> might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
>>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>>> String, String, String, String)
>>>
>>
>> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
>> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
>> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
>> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
>> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
>> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
The xsd is picked up by Tuscany and it is passed to the
SchemaFactory.newSchema() method. Now we have two XSDs, one from
assembly-xsd (tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd which includes other xsds) and the other
is binding-jsonp.xsd.
SchemaFactory.newSchema is keeping a cache based on target namespaces. When
the binding-jsonp.xsd is loaded, there is already entries from
tuscany-sca-1.1.xsd that has the same namespace (tuscany namespace) and
binding-jsonp.xsd is ignored.
We can fix the problem as follows:
For all the Source passed to newSchema(), we read the targetNamespace first
and group the XSDs by tns. If we see multiple files have the same namespace,
then we generate a façade XSD that includes the original XSDs.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:59 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can plug it in using
>> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
>> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name.
>> We
>> might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
>> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>>
>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
>> String, String, String, String)
>>
>
> Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
> r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
> have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
> without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
> after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
> extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
>
> ...ant
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can plug it in using
> META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
> Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name. We
> might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
> across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
>
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
> String, String, String, String)
>
Ok i've started trying this using the JSONP binding to try it out in
r802514. There must be something else going on as it doesn't seem to
have made much difference, the testcase in binding-jsonp-runtime runs
without producing any scheme validation error message both before and
after that change when the .composite is as is or changed to have
extra unused attributes added to the binding.jsonp element.
...ant
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
You can plug it in using
META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidationSchema.
Each text line in the file can point to an XSD using its resource name. We
might need to tweak the following method so that xsd:import/xsd:include
across modules can work. I can help to fix it if you see problems.
org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory.resolveResource(String,
String, String, String, String)
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:03 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
> Is there a pluggable way of adding extension scheme's so that SCDL
> validation doesn't get errors? Right now we add the non-OASIS tuscany
> extensions explicitly to the assembly-xsd module, but thats not going
> to be possible for others trying to write their own extensions outside
> of Tuscany. It doesn't look like there is, am i missing it? Otherwise
> isn't this something that needs be added?
>
> ...ant
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Luciano Resende<lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a pluggable way of adding extension scheme's so that SCDL
>> validation doesn't get errors? Right now we add the non-OASIS tuscany
>> extensions explicitly to the assembly-xsd module, but thats not going
>> to be possible for others trying to write their own extensions outside
>> of Tuscany. It doesn't look like there is, am i missing it? Otherwise
>> isn't this something that needs be added?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I have added this in 1.x in svn revision #657234 as part of
> TUSCANY-2295. I'd need to check if this was moved to 2.x
>
Ok great, in that case how about we also move the xsd's for each
extension to be included in the extension module instead of the
assembly-xsd module?
...ant
Re: Adding xsd's for scheme validation of extensions
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM, ant elder<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a pluggable way of adding extension scheme's so that SCDL
> validation doesn't get errors? Right now we add the non-OASIS tuscany
> extensions explicitly to the assembly-xsd module, but thats not going
> to be possible for others trying to write their own extensions outside
> of Tuscany. It doesn't look like there is, am i missing it? Otherwise
> isn't this something that needs be added?
>
> ...ant
>
I have added this in 1.x in svn revision #657234 as part of
TUSCANY-2295. I'd need to check if this was moved to 2.x
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/