On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree about version numbers in the URI but faintly hold that opinion. >
Problem is do we update the URIs everytime we release? Sounds like it would break folks. What would the benefits be? > BTW, should there be ASF notices in these schema and on the actual web > page? > Yeah.. I'll work on updating that. > > Regards, > Alan > > > > On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > > I might consider putting a version number in the URI, since if there > > are substantial changes to the config format in the future we'll > > probably want to use a different URI so we don't have the same URI > > mapping to different XSDs for various releases. But your proposal > > sounds like at least a step in the right direction, so +1. :) > > > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > The past day I've working hard on getting the activemq.xml to validate > > > against our xsd (something that never used to work). And I've noticed > > > that the current namespace is less than ideal. It's currently > > > 'http://activemq.org/config/1.0'. I think we should change that to > > > http://activemq.apache.org/schema/core so that it has the proper > > > hostname and path to where we store our schemas. > > > > > > Unless someone objects I'm going to update this for the 5.1 release. > > > This should not impact anybody since our schemas have never validate > > > before anyways. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Hiram > > > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > > > > > Open Source SOA > > > http://open.iona.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
