Re: [jsr-314-open] [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification
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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Ok, sure. That sounds even better.
>
>
> david
>
> 2009/12/7 Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)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