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

[Jason Lee]

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.

Jason Lee, SCJP
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com