Not sure how that answers my question. In my example, you'll notice that there are two Geronimo namespace versions. What do you put into the schema version attribute?
Regards, Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandip Ghayal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:42 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Geronimo Schema Versioning > > I do agree the need to have versioning. > > Any format is fine that helps me identify the version. > > And I also suppor the point that version number should > follow Geronimo Version number. > > Cheers, > > Sandip > --- "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----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 > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com
