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/
