> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Geronimo Schema Versioning > > Aaron Mulder wrote: > > 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.
I prefer option two; I do not like dots in my path. I think I have a scenario were your proposal about the schema version attribute will not hold up. Let's say that we've added some wizbang feature to http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_1. Now, I want to deploy this new feature in my web app: <web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty_1_0"; xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_1"; configId="..." parentId="..." version="1.?"> What schema version attribute should we use? Regards, Alan
