I think this is a good idea: it reduces an unnecessary and potentially confusing redundancy.
Sarge > On 23 Jan, 2017, at 10:05, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Today we have Geode XSD which contains two root elements, cache (server) > and client-cache and Native XSD that contains a client-cache. For the most > part these two schemas are the same for element client-cache. It strikes me > that it makes sense to coalesce these into a single common XSD. For areas > that need to diverge, specific to Java, C++ or .NET, the clients would use > extension namespaces similar to how the server config does can today. > > Consider something like this: > > <client-cache > > xmlns="http://geode.apache.io/schema/client"; > > xmlns:java="http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/java"; > > xmlns:cpp="http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/cpp"; > > xmlns:net="http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/net"; > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; > > xsi:schemaLocation="http://geode.apache.io/schema/client > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/client-1.0.xsd > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/java > > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/java/client-java-1.0.xsd > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/cpp > > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/cpp/client-cpp-1.0.xsd > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/net > > > http://geode.apache.io/schema/client/net/client-net-1.0.xsd"; > > version="1.0"> > > > > <net:appDomain enabled="true" /> > > > <pool > > name="example-pool" > > subscription-enabled="true" > > subscription-redundancy="1"> > > > > <java:someJavaSpecificThing name="theJavaWay" /> > > > > <cpp:someCppSpecificThing name="theCppWay" /> > > > <net:someDotNetSpecificThing name="the.NETWay" /> > > > > <server > > host="l1" > > port="1234" /> > > <server > > host="l2" > > port="1234" /> > > </pool> > > > > </client-cache> > > > This config file can now be change controlled by the customer and remain > consistent across all clients. This single file can be deployed to all > clients regardless of the client implementation language/framework. > > Thoughts? > > -Jake
