James Strachan wrote:
On 6/14/07, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current URI is
> http://activemq.org/config/1.0
>
> it might be better to use
> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core
>
> then it'd look more natural in spring docs?
>
> <beans
> xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";
> xmlns:amq="http://activemq.org/config/1.0";
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
> xsi:schemaLocation="
>
> http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans
> http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-2.0.xsd
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core
> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core.xsd";>
>
a) Note that you do NOT look like spring in this suggestion. Look at my
comments in 1016. The point is that spring, as you can see directly
above in your own paste, has as namespace URI a path to the directory
_of the instance_ XSD, which means that both are correct URLs. Your
suggestion translates to NOT being able to cut'n'paste that into a
browser and actually get a 200 back.
That URL actually does work...
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core
am just waiting for apache's web cache to update.
The only real difference to spring is spring adds part of the module
name as an extra directory in the URL - more on this later...
> or
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core
> http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core-5.0.xsd";>
>
> if folks wanna put a version number in?
How on earth should things work if you aren't specific?!
See, lots of installations will run on 4.1.2 even when you are releasing
version 10.69.84. And I bet there will be differences in the config XSD
at that point. So how would this work out when I specify the
non-versioned file?
Runtime would always use the bundled XSD in the jar. Your IDE can use
whatever XSD version you choose (you can easily move forward/backward
in your IDE).
Read the next reply I did.
(The version in the XML could possibly dictate which parser you use,
hence handle several version of the XSD at the same time, ref. any
Servlet Container).
So if you think it'd be more consistent we could go from
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/activemq-core-5.0.xsd
to
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core/activemq-core-5.0.xsd
ditto for activemq-ra, activemq-jpa et al. I guess the namespace would
be a tad shorter, at the expense of the URL being a fair bit longer
Doesn't make a huge difference, but I think the latter is nicer.
You could have called "core" for "mq", "amq" or something. Core sounds
like something you have to add something to, or else it'll not work.
Like "kernel" - ain't much of an OS with just the kernel, right?
The only downside is when folks go to
http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core it'd actually contain all
versions of all schemas; I don't know an easy way to fix that :).
But that's just perfect, isn't it?!
Regards,
Endre
