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

[David Geary]

2009/12/9 Jason Lee <jason at steeplesoft.com>

> 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.
>

Deal. :)

I can file an enhancement request, unless someone objects.


david


> Jason Lee, SCJP
> President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
> Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
> http://blogs.steeplesoft.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091209/f9ee1e6c/attachment.html