On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Peter Donald wrote: > * there is no formal syntax defined for Extension-Name or > Implementation-Vendor-Id. By convention most people use the name of the java > packages (ie reverse dns names in most cases) but this is not required.
It's a name - I don't think it needs a formal syntax. The same thing is true for namespaces in XML - the only thing that matter is "equal". > * syntax for versions is dewey decimal and there is no way to indicate > backwards incompatability. As long as number is bigger it assumed to be > compatible. ie 1.2.3.4.5 is meant to be compatible with 1.3, 2.3, 4.5 and > there is no way in lifetime of extension for it to be incompatible. I would > prefer a more fixed interpretation (ie major.minor.micro). Ages ago Rodney > Waldhoff sent an email titled "RFC: Versioning Guidelines" to commons-dev and > I responded to it. I think that had a good interpretation - it was the same > as what we have been using in Avalon aswell. That's because specifications _must_ be backward compatible. If it's no longer backward compatible - then it's a different specification. I think it makes sense - if 2 specs are not backward compatible it's better to treat them as completely different things. The only problem is when you have pieces of code that depend on both, and you use the same package names. Which is another argument for the "specs _must_ be backward compatible", and if they're not - you must use different name and different package... Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
