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 2010/08/16 11:06:07 UTC
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>
>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>
>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>
>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>> [3]
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>
> Hi Sebastien
>
> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>
> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>
> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
> thoughts?
>
Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> As part of sorting out the jms schema issues i do now have all the
>> -rev1 versions of the schemas installed locally and the build passes
>> ok after a couple of compliance test error message updates. So i might
>> as well commit this, unless anyone wnats to hold off for some reason?
>>
>
> Ok done. Hudson is down at the moment so i can't verify with an
> independent build that all is ok, if somebody else could do an update
> and build to help test it that would be great.
>
> ...ant
>
I've done an update and am not getting a clean build...
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Error for project: Apache Tuscany SCA iTest Distribution Legal Checks (du
ring install)
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Too many unapproved licenses: 456
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Error for project: Apache Tuscany SCA iTest JMS Message Format jmstextxml
injmsobjectout (during install)
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] There are test failures.
Please refer to D:\sca-java-2.x\itest\jms\format-jmstextxmlinjmsobjectout\target
\surefire-reports for the individual test results.
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Error for project: Apache Tuscany SCA iTest WS Launcher Axis2 (during ins
tall)
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] There are test failures.
Please refer to D:\sca-java-2.x\itest\ws\launcher-axis2\target\surefire-reports
for the individual test results.
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Error for project: Apache Tuscany SCA Specification Compliance Tests Asse
mbly (during install)
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] There are test failures.
Please refer to D:\sca-java-2.x\compliance-tests\assembly\target\surefire-report
s for the individual test results.
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] For more information, run Maven with the -e switch
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD ERRORS
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 55 minutes 8 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Wed Aug 18 14:53:31 BST 2010
[INFO] Final Memory: 174M/989M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am though building on top of quite a few local changes. With this
changes I was clean before the update but of course it's difficult to
tell if my local changes are interaction to the new stuff in svn in
strange ways. Investigating now.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> As part of sorting out the jms schema issues i do now have all the
> -rev1 versions of the schemas installed locally and the build passes
> ok after a couple of compliance test error message updates. So i might
> as well commit this, unless anyone wnats to hold off for some reason?
>
Ok done. Hudson is down at the moment so i can't verify with an
independent build that all is ok, if somebody else could do an update
and build to help test it that would be great.
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>>>>
>>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
>>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>>>
>>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
>>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
>> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
>> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
>> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
>> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>>
>
> As part of sorting out the jms schema issues i do now have all the
> -rev1 versions of the schemas installed locally and the build passes
> ok after a couple of compliance test error message updates. So i might
> as well commit this, unless anyone wnats to hold off for some reason?
>
> ...ant
>
It's OK by me. I have local changes (not specifically in the XSD) but
no way round that.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>>>
>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>> [3]
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>
>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>>
>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>>
>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>
As part of sorting out the jms schema issues i do now have all the
-rev1 versions of the schemas installed locally and the build passes
ok after a couple of compliance test error message updates. So i might
as well commit this, unless anyone wnats to hold off for some reason?
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:27 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> This appears to be a different problem. The element
>>>> <operationSelector.jmsDefault/> has type sca:OperationSelectType, which is
>>>> abstract (this was also true in the prior version of the binding.jms
>>>> schema). I do not believe that an element is allowed to have an abstract
>>>> type. The same problem exists for <wireFormat.jmsDefault/>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes i see the same problem with the wireFromat.
>>>
>>> So this is a bug in the OASIS schema's right?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Please make a diff of the new schemas with our current schemas as I
>> had fixed couple of these issues before. I have reported most of these
>> issues to OASIS and/or Mike but maybe some of these issues haven't
>> been applied to most recent OASIS schema.
>>
>
> It didn't/doesn't work with the current Tuscany versions of the schema
> either so what would the diff be of? You can see all the latest OASIS
> schema files at:
> http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/sca-assembly/SCA_XSDS/
>
> ...ant
>
I was thinking on diff between :
http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/sca-assembly/SCA_XSDS/sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
or take a look at the following revisions for the changes I had to
made to get things working at the latest schema update.
924924, 924588, 924589, 924587, 924586, 924581, 924579, 924580, 889531
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> This appears to be a different problem. The element
>>> <operationSelector.jmsDefault/> has type sca:OperationSelectType, which is
>>> abstract (this was also true in the prior version of the binding.jms
>>> schema). I do not believe that an element is allowed to have an abstract
>>> type. The same problem exists for <wireFormat.jmsDefault/>.
>>>
>>
>> Yes i see the same problem with the wireFromat.
>>
>> So this is a bug in the OASIS schema's right?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Please make a diff of the new schemas with our current schemas as I
> had fixed couple of these issues before. I have reported most of these
> issues to OASIS and/or Mike but maybe some of these issues haven't
> been applied to most recent OASIS schema.
>
It didn't/doesn't work with the current Tuscany versions of the schema
either so what would the diff be of? You can see all the latest OASIS
schema files at:
http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/sca-assembly/SCA_XSDS/
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> This appears to be a different problem. The element
>> <operationSelector.jmsDefault/> has type sca:OperationSelectType, which is
>> abstract (this was also true in the prior version of the binding.jms
>> schema). I do not believe that an element is allowed to have an abstract
>> type. The same problem exists for <wireFormat.jmsDefault/>.
>>
>
> Yes i see the same problem with the wireFromat.
>
> So this is a bug in the OASIS schema's right?
>
> ...ant
>
Please make a diff of the new schemas with our current schemas as I
had fixed couple of these issues before. I have reported most of these
issues to OASIS and/or Mike but maybe some of these issues haven't
been applied to most recent OASIS schema.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
FYI, i've raised this as a spec issue -
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201008/msg00027.html
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> This appears to be a different problem. The element
> <operationSelector.jmsDefault/> has type sca:OperationSelectType, which is
> abstract (this was also true in the prior version of the binding.jms
> schema). I do not believe that an element is allowed to have an abstract
> type. The same problem exists for <wireFormat.jmsDefault/>.
>
Yes i see the same problem with the wireFromat.
So this is a bug in the OASIS schema's right?
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com>.
This appears to be a different problem. The element
<operationSelector.jmsDefault/> has type sca:OperationSelectType, which is
abstract (this was also true in the prior version of the binding.jms
schema). I do not believe that an element is allowed to have an abstract
type. The same problem exists for <wireFormat.jmsDefault/>.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
Excellence Application Integration Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote on 08/16/2010 02:54:11 PM:
> From:
>
> ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
>
> To:
>
> dev@tuscany.apache.org
>
> Date:
>
> 08/16/2010 02:55 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> >> sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd does not contain the fix for Assembly-223. You
need
> >> sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd (and the other schema committed at the
same
> >> time).
> >>
> >> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
> >> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
> >> WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
> >> Excellence Application Integration Architect
> >>
> >> Research Triangle Park, NC
> >> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
> >> Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
> >>
> >> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote on 08/16/2010 12:18:37
PM:
> >>
> >>> From:
> >>>
> >>> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> >>>
> >>> To:
> >>>
> >>> dev@tuscany.apache.org, antelder@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> Date:
> >>>
> >>> 08/16/2010 12:19 PM
> >>>
> >>> Subject:
> >>>
> >>> Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
> >>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws
> >>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
> >>> >>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> >>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec
> >>> ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
> >>> >>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x
> >>> trunk schema
> >>> >>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or
> >>> workaround?) to the
> >>> >>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
> >>> >>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-
> >>> core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> >>> >>>>> [3]
> >>> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
> >>> modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Thanks
> >>> >>>>> --
> >>> >>>>> Jean-Sebastien
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Hi Sebastien
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema
wholesale.
> >>> >>>> It's
> >>> >>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is.
Either
> >>> >>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number
discussions.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out
the
> >>> >>>> new
> >>> >>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes
where
> >>> >>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes tothe
OASIS
> >>> >>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the
latest
> >>> >>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the
otests back
> >>> >>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're
not
> >>> >>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as
I
> >>> >>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the
moment
> >>> >>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyoneelse
have
> >>> >>>> thoughts?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some
issues
> >>> >>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
> >>> >>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it
causing
> >>> >>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ...ant
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can
give
> >>> >> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
> >>> >> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the
schema
> >>> >> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in
the
> >>> >> next few days and report back here on the effect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
> >>> >
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> >>> > but that gives the following:
> >>> >
> >>> > org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
> >>> > "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation
and
> >>> > WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
> >>> > elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
> >>> > Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity
would
> >>> > be created for those two particles.
> >>> >
> >>> > I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so
does
> >>> > anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
> >>> > changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
> >>> >
> >>> > ...ant
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ant
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the
one
> >>> we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the
remaining
> >>> xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to
> >>> have a conversation with OASIS.
> >>>
> >>> Which test were you running when you see the failure?
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> >>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
> >>
> >
> > Ah, thanks Bryan. Can't speak for Ant but I was certainly looking at
> > the wrong file.
> >
>
> Yep thanks i hadn't seen the *-rev1 versions of the files either.
>
> But i have now tried them now and still have problems, this time back
> at the same error that the tuscany mod'ed version of the schema's was
> giving:
>
> XMLSchema validation error occured in: Test_BJM_4008.composite ,line =
> 26, column = 17, Message = cvc-type.2: The type definition cannot be
> abstract for element operationSelector.jmsDefault
>
> Thats from a .composite file that has:
>
> <binding.jms uri="jms:jndi:TEST_BJM_4008_Queue">
> <operationSelector.jmsDefault/>
> </binding.jms>
>
> which should be using just the oasis schema's
> sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd and sca-binding-jms-1.1-cd04-rev1.xsd. Can
> any one see what could be going wrong (though there are quite a lot of
> oasis files to update so it is quite possible i've just missed one or
> not updated something correctly).
>
> ..ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd does not contain the fix for Assembly-223. You need
>> sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd (and the other schema committed at the same
>> time).
>>
>> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
>> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
>> WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
>> Excellence Application Integration Architect
>>
>> Research Triangle Park, NC
>> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
>> Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
>>
>> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote on 08/16/2010 12:18:37 PM:
>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>> dev@tuscany.apache.org, antelder@apache.org
>>>
>>> Date:
>>>
>>> 08/16/2010 12:19 PM
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>>
>>> Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
>>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws
>>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>>> >>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec
>>> ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>> >>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x
>>> trunk schema
>>> >>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or
>>> workaround?) to the
>>> >>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>> >>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-
>>> core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>> >>>>> [3]
>>> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
>>> modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hi Sebastien
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale.
>>> >>>> It's
>>> >>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>>> >>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the
>>> >>>> new
>>> >>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>>> >>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>>> >>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>>> >>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>>> >>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>>> >>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>>> >>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>>> >>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>>> >>>> thoughts?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>>> >>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>>> >>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>>> >>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ...ant
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
>>> >> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
>>> >> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
>>> >> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
>>> >> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
>>> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>> > but that gives the following:
>>> >
>>> > org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
>>> > "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and
>>> > WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
>>> > elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
>>> > Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would
>>> > be created for those two particles.
>>> >
>>> > I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does
>>> > anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
>>> > changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
>>> >
>>> > ...ant
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hi Ant
>>>
>>> Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the one
>>> we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the remaining
>>> xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to
>>> have a conversation with OASIS.
>>>
>>> Which test were you running when you see the failure?
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
> Ah, thanks Bryan. Can't speak for Ant but I was certainly looking at
> the wrong file.
>
Yep thanks i hadn't seen the *-rev1 versions of the files either.
But i have now tried them now and still have problems, this time back
at the same error that the tuscany mod'ed version of the schema's was
giving:
XMLSchema validation error occured in: Test_BJM_4008.composite ,line =
26, column = 17, Message = cvc-type.2: The type definition cannot be
abstract for element operationSelector.jmsDefault
Thats from a .composite file that has:
<binding.jms uri="jms:jndi:TEST_BJM_4008_Queue">
<operationSelector.jmsDefault/>
</binding.jms>
which should be using just the oasis schema's
sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd and sca-binding-jms-1.1-cd04-rev1.xsd. Can
any one see what could be going wrong (though there are quite a lot of
oasis files to update so it is quite possible i've just missed one or
not updated something correctly).
..ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd does not contain the fix for Assembly-223. You need
> sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd (and the other schema committed at the same
> time).
>
> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
> WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
> Excellence Application Integration Architect
>
> Research Triangle Park, NC
> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
> Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
>
> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote on 08/16/2010 12:18:37 PM:
>
>> From:
>>
>> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>>
>> To:
>>
>> dev@tuscany.apache.org, antelder@apache.org
>>
>> Date:
>>
>> 08/16/2010 12:19 PM
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>> Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws
>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>> >>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec
>> ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>> >>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x
>> trunk schema
>> >>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or
>> workaround?) to the
>> >>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>> >>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-
>> core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>> >>>>> [3]
>> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
>> modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Sebastien
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale.
>> >>>> It's
>> >>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>> >>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the
>> >>>> new
>> >>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>> >>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>> >>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>> >>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>> >>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>> >>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>> >>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>> >>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>> >>>> thoughts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>> >>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>> >>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>> >>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>> >>>
>> >>> ...ant
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
>> >> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
>> >> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
>> >> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
>> >> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
>> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>> > but that gives the following:
>> >
>> > org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
>> > "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and
>> > WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
>> > elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
>> > Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would
>> > be created for those two particles.
>> >
>> > I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does
>> > anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
>> > changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>>
>> Hi Ant
>>
>> Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the one
>> we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the remaining
>> xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to
>> have a conversation with OASIS.
>>
>> Which test were you running when you see the failure?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Ah, thanks Bryan. Can't speak for Ant but I was certainly looking at
the wrong file.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Bryan Aupperle <au...@us.ibm.com>.
sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd does not contain the fix for Assembly-223. You need
sca-core-1.1-cd05-rev1.xsd (and the other schema committed at the same
time).
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
Excellence Application Integration Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote on 08/16/2010 12:18:37 PM:
> From:
>
> Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>
> To:
>
> dev@tuscany.apache.org, antelder@apache.org
>
> Date:
>
> 08/16/2010 12:19 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws
> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws
> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
> >>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec
> ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
> >>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x
> trunk schema
> >>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or
> workaround?) to the
> >>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
> >>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-
> core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> >>>>> [3]
> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
> modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Jean-Sebastien
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Sebastien
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale.
It's
> >>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
> >>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the
new
> >>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes
where
> >>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the
OASIS
> >>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the
latest
> >>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests
back
> >>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
> >>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
> >>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the
moment
> >>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else
have
> >>>> thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some
issues
> >>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
> >>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it
causing
> >>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
> >>>
> >>> ...ant
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
> >> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
> >> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
> >> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
> >> next few days and report back here on the effect.
> >>
> >
> > I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> > but that gives the following:
> >
> > org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
> > "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and
> > WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
> > elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
> > Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would
> > be created for those two particles.
> >
> > I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does
> > anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
> > changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> Hi Ant
>
> Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the one
> we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the remaining
> xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to
> have a conversation with OASIS.
>
> Which test were you running when you see the failure?
>
> Simon
>
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>>>>
>>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
>>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>>>
>>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
>>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
>> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
>> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
>> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
>> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>>
>
> I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
> but that gives the following:
>
> org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
> "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and
> WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
> elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
> Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would
> be created for those two particles.
>
> I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does
> anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
> changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
>
> ...ant
>
Hi Ant
Looking at the different between the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd and the one
we have it seems that we've gone in and removed some of the remaining
xsd:any elements. If these really need to be removed then we need to
have a conversation with OASIS.
Which test were you running when you see the failure?
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>>>
>>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>> [3]
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Sebastien
>>>
>>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
>>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>>
>>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
>>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>>
>>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
>> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
>> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
>> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
> this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
> enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
> change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
> next few days and report back here on the effect.
>
I've just tried changing Tuscany to use the xsd at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
but that gives the following:
org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: cos-nonambig:
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":implementation and
WC[##other:"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"] (or
elements from their substitution group) violate "Unique Particle
Attribution". During validation against this schema, ambiguity would
be created for those two particles.
I've not been involved in ASSEMBLY-223 or these scheam updates so does
anyone else know whats going on or if there are other associated
changes needed other than just the sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd one?
...ant
Re: Fix to SCA spec issue ASSEMBLY-223
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
>> <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Are there any plans to apply the fix described in SCA spec ASSEMBLY-223 [1]
>>> to the Tuscany SCA XML schemas?
>>>
>>> A diff between the OASIS CD05 schema [2] and the Tuscany 2.x trunk schema
>>> [3] shows that Tuscany has applied a different fix (or workaround?) to the
>>> issue reported in ASSEMBLY-223.
>>>
>>> I think it would be good to apply the official fix from OASIS.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-223
>>> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>> [3]
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/sca-core-1.1-cd05.xsd
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>
>>
>> Hi Sebastien
>>
>> Yes, we need to move to the latest set of OASIS schema wholesale. It's
>> a little difficult to tell precisely what version that is. Either
>> CD05-rev1 or CD06 as they are having revision number discussions.
>>
>> This is going to cause some pain for a few days as we sort out the new
>> features. We have been carrying a few Tuscany specific changes where
>> we were getting ahead of the formal application of fixes to the OASIS
>> XSD so we do need to sort those out also.
>>
>> I don't know how hard it's going to be yet. We need to get the latest
>> XSD and give them a go. Personally I'd like us to get the otests back
>> to a level of stability before doing the refresh so that we're not
>> fighting too many fronts at once. There maybe limits to this as I
>> expect some of the new otests depend on the new schema. At the moment
>> it feels like next week will be the time to do this. Anyone else have
>> thoughts?
>>
>
> Has anyone tried or would like to try this yet? I'm having some issues
> with the jms binding schema that i wonder if might be fixed by
> updating to the latest sca schemas, but your comment about it causing
> pain for a few days puts me off trying it.
>
> ...ant
>
I think we've got back to the stage with the otests where we can give
this a try. They're not all passing yet but we're down to a small
enough number failing to allow us to assess the impact of the schema
change. If no one else steps up I could give it a go locally in the
next few days and report back here on the effect.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com