All,
I suggest we add the "Geronimo version number" to our schema file names and namespaces. For example, a Geronimo Jetty header currently looks like this:
<web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty"; xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming"; configId="..." parentId="...">
And I'm thinking it ought to be more like this:
<web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty_1_0"; xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_0"; configId="..." parentId="..." >
Or else like this:
<web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/web/jetty"; xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/naming"; configId="..." parentId="..." >
I'm thinking 2 or 3 release down the road, when we'll want to be able to look at a deployment plan and identify which release it was developed against, since the deployment plan format will surely change as we go. It will also let us put the Schemas on our web site and there would be a more obvious correspondance between the namespace and the schema location.
I concur with Aaron and I vote for option number three with one addition. IMO, I think that we should add the schema version attribute like so:
<web-app
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/web/jetty";
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/naming";
configId="..." parentId="..."
version="1.0">I also have one question for you, Aaron. Should the directory name and the schema version atribute follow the Geronimo version? I would argue that it should so that we don't wind up with Geronimo at, say, version 2.3 and the schema version attribute and the directory at, say, version 4.1. Keeping these items in sync with the overall Geronimo version will save a lot of trouble in the long run.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\\"F9E<G)E=\\$\\!F<FEI+F-O;0\\`\\`");'
The Castor Project http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
