2009/12/9 Jason Lee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jason@steeplesoft.com">jason@steeplesoft.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Pete Muir wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Agreed, I don't think for the composite components we made the best choice for URI schema, IMO it should have been more like<br>
<br>
xmlns:pete="composite:components/pete"<br>
<br>
- 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":<br>
<br>
xmlns:pete="faces:composite:components/pete"<br>
<br>
which is a bit longer but more generic...<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div>
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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Deal. :)<br><br>I can file an enhancement request, unless someone objects.<br><br><br>david<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="#888888">
<br>
Jason Lee, SCJP<br>
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group<br>
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems<br>
<a href="http://blogs.steeplesoft.com" target="_blank">http://blogs.steeplesoft.com</a><br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>