1:11 p.m.
Something that has come up in a JIRA issue [1] is the question of
whether the WildFly Client Configuration file should use a schema for
its root element.
The root of the "wildfly-client.xml" file is presently a single,
namespace-less element named "configuration". The content of this
element is a sequence of library-specific configuration, like this:
<configuration>
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
<configuration>
The question is, should there be a schema for that root element? The
entire schema would be something like:
<xs:element name="configuration" type="configuration-type"/>
<xs:complexType name="configuration-type">
<xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" namespace="##other"/>
</xs:complexType>
Then you'd have to put the configuration namespace in as well:
<configuration xmlns="urn:wildfly-client:1.0">
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
</configuration>
WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a single element?
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
--
- DML
2:15 a.m.
On 06/07/2017 08:11 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a single
element?
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
No
Rio
11:21 a.m.
I think from a users perspective it wouldn't hurt to have one. It's like
documentation if you know how it works it's not useful. However if you're
just trying to learn how it works it can be helpful. :)
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Something that has come up in a JIRA issue [1] is the question of
whether the WildFly Client Configuration file should use a schema for
its root element.
The root of the "wildfly-client.xml" file is presently a single,
namespace-less element named "configuration". The content of this
element is a sequence of library-specific configuration, like this:
<configuration>
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
<configuration>
The question is, should there be a schema for that root element? The
entire schema would be something like:
<xs:element name="configuration" type="configuration-type"/>
<xs:complexType name="configuration-type">
<xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" namespace="##other"/>
</xs:complexType>
Then you'd have to put the configuration namespace in as well:
<configuration xmlns="urn:wildfly-client:1.0">
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
</configuration>
WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a single element?
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
--
- DML
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
5:07 a.m.
The point is the schema will not be helpful - the configuration element
can contain any element from any other namespace so from reading the
schema all you will know is the element is called 'configuration', you
will know it's namespace and you know it can contain anything.
If we do add this we will probably want it in by mid next week at the
latest - if we are mandating the namespace is specified we will want
some time to find any existing config files that don't contain it.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 08/06/17 17:21, James Perkins wrote:
I think from a users perspective it wouldn't hurt to have one.
It's like
documentation if you know how it works it's not useful. However if
you're just trying to learn how it works it can be helpful. :)
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com
<mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com>> wrote:
Something that has come up in a JIRA issue [1] is the question of
whether the WildFly Client Configuration file should use a schema for
its root element.
The root of the "wildfly-client.xml" file is presently a single,
namespace-less element named "configuration". The content of this
element is a sequence of library-specific configuration, like this:
<configuration>
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
<configuration>
The question is, should there be a schema for that root element? The
entire schema would be something like:
<xs:element name="configuration"
type="configuration-type"/>
<xs:complexType name="configuration-type">
<xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" namespace="##other"/>
</xs:complexType>
Then you'd have to put the configuration namespace in as well:
<configuration xmlns="urn:wildfly-client:1.0">
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
</configuration>
WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a single element?
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098>
--
- DML
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
10:01 a.m.
It's really the description of the single tag that would be of benefit IMO.
I suppose though really that could be documented elsewhere. I don't really
have a strong opinion one way or the other on it.
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Darran Lofthouse <darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com
wrote:
> The point is the schema will not be helpful - the configuration element
> can contain any element from any other namespace so from reading the schema
> all you will know is the element is called 'configuration', you will know
> it's namespace and you know it can contain anything.
>
> If we do add this we will probably want it in by mid next week at the
> latest - if we are mandating the namespace is specified we will want some
> time to find any existing config files that don't contain it.
>
> Regards,
> Darran Lofthouse.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/17 17:21, James Perkins wrote:
>
>> I think from a users perspective it wouldn't hurt to have one. It's like
>> documentation if you know how it works it's not useful. However if
>> you're just trying to learn how it works it can be helpful. :)
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Something that has come up in a JIRA issue [1] is the question of
>> whether the WildFly Client Configuration file should use a schema for
>> its root element.
>>
>> The root of the "wildfly-client.xml" file is presently a single,
>> namespace-less element named "configuration". The content of this
>> element is a sequence of library-specific configuration, like this:
>>
>> <configuration>
>> <discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
>> <!-- content here -->
>> </discovery>
>> <jboss-ejb-client
xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
>> <!-- content here -->
>> </jboss-ejb-client>
>> <!-- etc. -->
>> <configuration>
>>
>> The question is, should there be a schema for that root element? The
>> entire schema would be something like:
>>
>> <xs:element name="configuration"
type="configuration-type"/>
>>
>> <xs:complexType name="configuration-type">
>> <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded"
namespace="##other"/>
>> </xs:complexType>
>>
>> Then you'd have to put the configuration namespace in as well:
>>
>> <configuration xmlns="urn:wildfly-client:1.0">
>> <discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
>> <!-- content here -->
>> </discovery>
>> <jboss-ejb-client
xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
>> <!-- content here -->
>> </jboss-ejb-client>
>> <!-- etc. -->
>> </configuration>
>>
>> WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a single
>> element?
>>
>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098>
>> --
>> - DML
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James R. Perkins
>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>>
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
10:56 a.m.
We probably do want to make sure we list somewhere the known supported
types that can be used in a configuration element.
On 09/06/17 16:01, James Perkins wrote:
It's really the description of the single tag that would be of
benefit
IMO. I suppose though really that could be documented elsewhere. I don't
really have a strong opinion one way or the other on it.
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Darran Lofthouse
<darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com <mailto:darran.lofthouse@jboss.com>> wrote:
The point is the schema will not be helpful - the configuration
element can contain any element from any other namespace so from
reading the schema all you will know is the element is called
'configuration', you will know it's namespace and you know it can
contain anything.
If we do add this we will probably want it in by mid next week at
the latest - if we are mandating the namespace is specified we will
want some time to find any existing config files that don't contain it.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 08/06/17 17:21, James Perkins wrote:
I think from a users perspective it wouldn't hurt to have one.
It's like
documentation if you know how it works it's not useful. However if
you're just trying to learn how it works it can be helpful. :)
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David M. Lloyd
<david.lloyd(a)redhat.com <mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com>
<mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com <mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com>>>
wrote:
Something that has come up in a JIRA issue [1] is the
question of
whether the WildFly Client Configuration file should use a
schema for
its root element.
The root of the "wildfly-client.xml" file is presently a single,
namespace-less element named "configuration". The content
of this
element is a sequence of library-specific configuration,
like this:
<configuration>
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client
xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
<configuration>
The question is, should there be a schema for that root
element? The
entire schema would be something like:
<xs:element name="configuration"
type="configuration-type"/>
<xs:complexType name="configuration-type">
<xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded"
namespace="##other"/>
</xs:complexType>
Then you'd have to put the configuration namespace in as well:
<configuration xmlns="urn:wildfly-client:1.0">
<discovery xmlns="urn:wildfly-discovery:1.0">
<!-- content here -->
</discovery>
<jboss-ejb-client
xmlns="urn:jboss:wildfly-client-ejb:3.0">
<!-- content here -->
</jboss-ejb-client>
<!-- etc. -->
</configuration>
WDYT? Is it worth having a whole schema/namespace for a
single element?
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098>
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1098>>
--
- DML
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>>
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
2722
days inactive
2724
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Darran Lofthouse -
David M. Lloyd -
James Perkins -
Richard Opalka