Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!

[Paul McMahan]

Both options seem pretty equal to me in terms of what they can express but I like the second option better mostly for stylistic reasons.  Namely, based on a hunch that typical deployment plans would be less verbose (and therefore less error prone) using this option.

A few suggestions for the second option:

-   Make the current environment/configId element also be a child of the dependency element.
    This would help make it clear that the "type", "groupId", "version", etc. elements describe
    the target of the dependency and not the dependency itself.
-   "scope" seems a bit of a misnomer to me, I think "dependency-type" might be clearer, or
    you may prefer just "type" if you agree with the previous suggestion
-   For the value of scope (aka dependency-type) I'm concerned that "both" could be
    misleading since it already has more than two potential values and more could be added
    later. So I would suggest listing each scope individually.

Here's an example of what the dependency element could look like based on these suggestions:
    <dependency>
        <configId>
            <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
            <type>car</type>
            <artifactId>geronimo-gbean-deployer</artifactId>

            <version>1.0.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
        </configId>

        <dependency-types>
            <dependency-type>service</dependency-type>
            <dependency-type>classes</dependency-type>
             ...
        <dependency-types>

   </dependency>

Best wishes,
Paul

On 2/14/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

We need some widespread thought about the new xml schema we're
getting in 1.1.   Dain and I are not particularly thrilled with the
element names but haven't thought of improvements.  We also thought
of an alternate way of presenting the info and would like opinions on
which is better.

The schema currently in svn in the configid branch results in plans
that start like this:  [snip]