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

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(a)sun.com&gt;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