[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
- From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Martin Gudgin <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:00:28 -0700
> martin = new best.practice.com.Person();
> martin.lastName = "Gudgin";
> martin.firstName = "Martin";
> I don't think anyone would claim that the fields of the Person class were in
> the best.practice.com package. They are local to the Person class.
Then the same logic should be applied to "martin" the instance and it should
be serialized to
<lastName> Gudgin </lastName>
<firstName> Martin </firstName>
... because nobody would claim that "martin" the instance is in the
best.practice.com package. It is local to that method.
> For example, SOAP has always done it this way and has been around
> since Sept '99.
Hmm. OK. Actually this is my first time to read the spec of SOAP, but I
found plenty of examples in the spec.
I'd appreciate if you would show me one or two more examples.
> My point about attributes is this; you seem to have no problem with locally
> scoped attributes. That is you advocate having attributes that are
> unqualified. The only way to correctly interpret an unqualified attribute is
> to look at the element that owns that attribute. What is so bad about taking
Because unqualified attributes reside in the small namespace that its
owner element creates. It's called "the per-element-type partitions."
Any unqualified element, on the other hand, resides in the no-namespace.
(I don't know the correct terminology.)
I think this is a significant difference.