On 6/14/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Endre Stølsvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) Since any IDE will use the URL, and not the spring.schemas, this is
> one reason you should encourage the use of exact versions. Or else my
> perfectly valid spring file suddenly will start to reek of errors, even
> though it is perfectly Okay when running.
Most IDEs allow you to specify which physical XSD maps to a remote XSD
or namespace URI. Its a tradeoff - do you want to have to update your
configuration files after every release (to take advantage of possibly
new attributes available), or do you want to just hide that stuff in
your IDE configuration. I can see the benefits of either approach.
Users can choose either way themselves.
I guess it might be better if the activemq.xml in each release binary
referenced the exact version number; we'd then need to change the
release process to substitute in the release number in the
activemq.xml file when making the distro.
Incidentally; one of the nice benefits of the spring.schemas file is
it means that your application won't try and connect to the internet
at runtime to load the XSD (with firewalls & proxies that is not
always possible). If users stuck on (say) 4.1 of the XSD and we
released 4.1.2; then the entity resolver would not be able to resolve
the 4.1.2 schema; so your application could break if you upgrade to a
newer version of ActiveMQ.
The great thing about not using a version number in the users config
file is; ActiveMQ will always use a local XSD and never use the
internet; this is a big benefit to lots of users.
BTW its worth mentioning that spring itself supports versioned and
non-versioned XSDs. You can use
*beans/spring-beans-2.0.xsd
or
*beans/spring-beans.xsd
which is where I got the idea from actually :)
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
