I don't think it's about disabling the xml validation, but it's about allowing old feature definition to work. Afaik, both Camel and ActiveMQ can't work with the current trunk, so I'd rather defer that change to 3.1, and make sure we have releases of stable versions that will work with 3.0 before doing anything.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 16:23, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Guillaume, > > I was too quick in my previous answer. The Camel issue is not the same, > the name is well defined, but it doesn't define the namespace. > > On trunk, the XML validation using the XSD is used for a long time now. > > I don't want to disable it on trunk, and I think that the name definition > is fine. > > WDYT ? > > > Regards > JB > > On 11/23/2011 09:44 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> Actually, I've just hit a problem where the latest camel stable release >> 2.8.3 can't be deployed anymore because it does not contain the namespace. >> I wonder if rejecting such features definition is a bit premature at this >> point. >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 18:11, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ioannis, >>> >>> My comments: >>> >>> 1/ it's on trunk, I display just a warning on 2.2.x >>> 2/ the main reason is all features without name will use the same >>> repository name (local-0 or so). It means that features:listrepositories >>> is >>> not helpful at all. With a mandatory name, we have a clean repository by >>> features. >>> 3/ all projects (Camel, CXF, SMX, etc) define the name on the recent >>> versions. For instance, the last version without name is Camel 2.6.0. >>> >>> That's why I changed it on trunk, as it makes sense for me. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> >>> On 11/19/2011 02:02 PM, Ioannis Canellos wrote: >>> >>> I came across this one today: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" /> >>>> >>>>> +<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" /> >>>>> </xs:complexType> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Though I don't mind setting things strict, this will render some of the >>>> existing existing feature descriptors useless (I am refering to 3rd >>>> party >>>> descriptors). >>>> This sounds kinda heavy and I do not see a good reason for it (what I >>>> mean >>>> is that in order to cover a trivial need we seriously break backwards >>>> compatibility). >>>> If we still have to do so, then we might need to bump the version of the >>>> xsd. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
