Joerg Heinicke pisze:
Yes, I think it should be released with the block it contains it. I don't know if its versioning needs to follow its containing block though. Not every release of the block makes changes in the schema necessary. Despite steps in the versioning it will probably be easier though to follow the block's versioning.
Agreed.
I'm against the SNAPSHOT suffix. A DTD or schema should never be retrieved from remote, but always from a local version (via xml catalogue or whatever). For somebody doing the latter it should be obvious whether it's released or not since he works with the released or the snapshot block. IMO it's just too much work to change all the references from the snapshot version to the release version if they differ in name.
I agree that renaming would involve too much tinkering but I don't get XML catalog solution fully. Do you want to say that publishing schema is useless because we should always use XML catalogs for receiving schemas?
Spring handles it the same way [1]. They did not even increase the version number on changes [2]. Important is probably the backwards compatibility. In that particular case: An XML written against Spring 2.0.2's AOP schema works in 2.0.3 as well despite the additional attribute. No idea yet when it is better to force the user to update his references.
I really don't like such a solution. I really like to know that something released as x.y.z is never going to change. Otherwise, whole versioning seems vague for me.
-- Grzegorz Kossakowski http://reflectingonthevicissitudes.wordpress.com/
