Just to clarify, the "components" directory is not required under resources. The developer has the option of doing:<br><br>jcf:cc:acme<br><br>which resolves to <br><br>/resources/acme<br><br>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.<br>
<br>-Dan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Roger Kitain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Roger.Kitain@sun.com">Roger.Kitain@sun.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
"cc" is fine since it matches the EL expression (consistency).<br>
I also think "jsf" is fine especially since "jsf" is used in the core (f) and html (h)<br>
namespaces.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-roger</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Jim Driscoll wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
On 12/9/09 7:07 AM, Jason Lee wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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<br>
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<br>
within the URI scheme guidelines because we use a scheme name. By<br>
defining our own scheme, we are then free to choose how the<br>
"hierarchical part" looks. Arguably we could go for a less generic<br>
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>
I like this approach. Of the two, part of me thinks the second might be<br>
the better choice, as it gives us a bit more flexibility to add things<br>
under the faces scheme, thus kind of grouping things together, but<br>
another part of me wonders if we'd ever want to do that, given the<br>
context of the discussion (YAGNI ;). However, it's only 6 characters (or<br>
4 for "jsf:"), so I don't see the harm in the slightly longer proposal.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
Further, in the interest of brevity, why say "composite"? Why not match the implicit EL object and just say "cc"?<br>
<br>
Thus:<br>
<br>
xmlns:jim="jsf:cc:jim"<br>
<br>
Isn't that just as clear to someone who already knows what #{cc} is?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Shorter is almost always better, especially for frequently typed boilerplate.<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>