good points.
On 6/15/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should include a version number in there. JUST in case in
> ActiveMQ 6.0 we decide to get radical with the xml configuration and
> make it not compatible with 5.0. We would not want the old 5.0
> clients pulling down the xsd as the 6.0 clients.
We could always just come up with a new namespace URI (with added
version) if we decide to go there in ActiveMQ 6.x. Picking a
version-less URI doesn't preclude us from adding a version in there
later on if we find we need it.
But given there's little likelihood of major XML surgery for some time
to come; I'm totally cool with following Spring's lead on the use of
URIs and XSD locations...
* the XSD location is mandatory in spring 2.0 XML; and so specifies
the versioning
* the URI can then be a simple URI without version info and map to a
directory of all the actual physical XSD versions.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
