[jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification

[Pete Muir]

I would argue against this, on the basis of learnability. Anyone who has used XML schema immediately understands the current scheme and can transfer their domain knowledge about XML across. David's proposed syntax is a complete deviation from the standard. Dan's is a bit better, as it is a valid URI [1], but it still isn't a URN [2].

To make it a valid URN (which arguably this should have been in the first place ;-), it could be:

urn:faces:components:util

But is that really more readable? Perhaps my brain is just addled by URLs ;-)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme#Generic_syntax
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name#URN_Syntax

On 7 Dec 2009, at 22:07, Dan Allen wrote:

> I like the idea, but I'm wondering if we can still retain the URN
> format. Perhaps something like one of the following:
> 
> urn:components/util
> 
> Any other ideas are welcome.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind that we are still hoping to be able to merge
> composite components with Java-based component libraries. So this
> would be a shorthand that would strictly be for sets of components
> which are composite only. To merge, you would have to switch to a
> formal URL syntax.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III
> <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1, +1
>> 
>> Lincoln Baxter III
>> http://ocpsoft.com
>> http://scrumshark.com
>> Keep it simple.
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2009 3:08 PM, "David Geary" <clarity.training at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ok, sure. That sounds even better.
>> 
>> 
>> david
>> 
>> 2009/12/7 Kito Mann <kito.mann at virtua.com>
>> 
>>>> +1 > > I say we add it to the issue tracker for a the maintenance
>>>> release (_not_ 2.1). > --- > ...
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
> 
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen