Tim Cook wrote: > This is really an implementer's question but I'd like opinions from > everyone on it. > > ADL files carry the adl version as well as the reference model name that > the archetype was built against. > > With the ARB starting on release 1.1 and it looks like there may be > changes that impact software. I wonder if we should raise a CR for 1.1 > that adds the RM version number to the ADL as well? > > While I know that the ARB will do everything possible to not break > backwards compatibillity. It could be useful for the software to be > able to tell which RM version an archetype was built against. > > Cheers, > Tim > > *We thought about this a number of times over the last few years. The problem is that many archetypes are completely compatible with multiple versions of the reference model, because changes occur in other parts of the reference model. So marking an archetype with "RM version 1.0" doesn't tell you the most likely question you will ask, which is "is this archetype compatible with R 1.0.2, that I am using in my system?" The answer might be no or yes - it depends on the archetype, and what things it references in the RM. The only solution I can see is to put such compatibility information in the CKM and other similar tools, and make the compatibility list available from service interfaces that provide access to archetypes. The same goes for shared templates.
So I think that a RM version number indicator on an archetype is in general not useful, and may even be misleading. hope this helps - thomas beale *
