Just noticed that the following client plans were not updated to use the new versioned schemas - j2ee-client-corba-plan.xml j2ee-client-security-plan.xml
but the following was updated - j2ee-client-plan.xml Is this by design? Will this still allow us to support/recognize older clients connecting to newer servers? -Donald --- "David Jencks (JIRA)" <[email protected]> wrote: > [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957?page=all ] > > David Jencks closed GERONIMO-957: > --------------------------------- > > Resolution: Fixed > > Head rev 292333 > Many openejb changes > M5 rev 292376 > openejb M5 changes are committed. > > versions on both schemas and files are -1.0 or -2.0 (for openejb) > > > Add version numbers to Geronimo schemas > > --------------------------------------- > > > > Key: GERONIMO-957 > > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957 > > Project: Geronimo > > Type: Improvement > > Components: deployment > > Versions: 1.0-M4 > > Reporter: Aaron Mulder > > Assignee: David Jencks > > Fix For: 1.0-M5 > > > > > The Geronimo & OpenEJB schemas currently have no version number > in the namespace or the file name. This means that when we have > multiple versions of Geronimo, > > * It will not be possible to store schemas from different > versions in the same directory (e.g. to include new and old formats > in the schemas/ dir or post them all at a web URL) > > * It will also not be possible to tell from reading a schema > what version it applies to (unless perhaps we do this with > comments?) > > * When writing an application plan, it won't be possible to > indicate which version of the Geronimo schemas it complies with > > * When Geronimo is parsing a plan, it won't know if the plan was > written to a current or older version of the schemas > > At a minimum, I'd like to add a version number to the schema file > name. However, the greatest advantage is in adding it to the > namespace as well. > > An alternative is to take the J2EE approach of leaving the > namespace the same and adding a "version" attribute to the > top-level element in every file. However, that seems less > attractive to me since we have so many schema imports (security, > naming, etc.) and it would be unfortunate to need to repeat the > version on every ejb-ref tag and so on, or to automatically assume > that all the imports follow the same version as the containing > schema (especially for something like OpenEJB which is on a > different version track than Geronimo). > > If we defer adding a version in any way for v1.0, I think we'll > end up wanting to do it later, and it doesn't seem too nice to have > "unversioned" mean "1.0" when all subsequent releases are > versioned. > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > - > If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the > administrators: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa > - > For more information on JIRA, see: > http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
