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

[Dan Allen]

Just to clarify, the "components" directory is not required under resources.
The developer has the option of doing:

jcf:cc:acme

which resolves to

/resources/acme

Since cc stands for composite components, some people may see the
"components" directory as redundant (as we cited in earlier examples in the
thread). I'm just stating a fact for clarification.

-Dan

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Roger Kitain <Roger.Kitain at sun.com> wrote:

> "cc" is fine since it matches the EL expression (consistency).
> I also think "jsf" is fine especially since "jsf" is used in the core (f)
> and html (h)
> namespaces.
>
> -roger
>
>
> Jim Driscoll wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/09 7:07 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed, I don't think for the composite components we made the best
>>>> choice for URI schema, IMO it should have been more like
>>>>
>>>> xmlns:pete="composite:components/pete"
>>>>
>>>> - the big difference to the original proposal is that we are still
>>>> within the URI scheme guidelines because we use a scheme name. By
>>>> defining our own scheme, we are then free to choose how the
>>>> "hierarchical part" looks. Arguably we could go for a less generic
>>>> scheme name like "faces" or "jsf":
>>>>
>>>> xmlns:pete="faces:composite:components/pete"
>>>>
>>>> which is a bit longer but more generic...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like this approach. Of the two, part of me thinks the second might be
>>> the better choice, as it gives us a bit more flexibility to add things
>>> under the faces scheme, thus kind of grouping things together, but
>>> another part of me wonders if we'd ever want to do that, given the
>>> context of the discussion (YAGNI ;). However, it's only 6 characters (or
>>> 4 for "jsf:"), so I don't see the harm in the slightly longer proposal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would prefer jsf:composite:jim for components under resources/jim, and
>> jsf:composite:comp/jim for components under resources/comp/jim.  Two
>> characters might not seem like a lot, but why not use jsf instead of faces
>> if it signifies the same thing to users and is shorter?  (We already use
>> "jsf" in the Ajax library.)
>>
>> Further, in the interest of brevity, why say "composite"?  Why not match
>> the implicit EL object and just say "cc"?
>>
>> Thus:
>>
>> xmlns:jim="jsf:cc:jim"
>>
>> Isn't that just as clear to someone who already knows what #{cc} is?
>>
>> Concerned that it's too cryptic?  Look at the first part of that phrase.
>>  Anyone think that the XML standards guys should have called it xmlnamespace
>> instead of xmlns?
>>
>> Shorter is almost always better, especially for frequently typed
>> boilerplate.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>


-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091211/f8ae8c6f/attachment.html