Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 99506 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2006 21:34:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2006 21:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 75408 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2006 21:34:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list jdo-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 75397 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2006 21:34:39 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:34:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [212.224.30.66] (HELO service-01.spree.de) (212.224.30.66) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:34:38 -0800 Received: from [172.16.2.80] (vpn-server [192.168.16.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by service-01.spree.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k1LLV6VF022414 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:31:07 +0100 Message-ID: <43FB8756.6040004@spree.de> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:34:14 +0100 From: Michael Bouschen Organization: Tech@Spree Engineering User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: jdo.dtd changes References: <6BAD7096-9AB5-4673-8CE2-CD58ECBA72F4@Sun.COM> <43F8B892.6000705@spree.de> <43F8D5AE.9040206@spree.de> <44A4E5ED-57C7-4C82-B687-988D512B96C2@Sun.COM> <43FA16BF.9040900@spree.de> <6FB78918-19AA-408D-9488-12271F0EEFE7@Sun.COM> <43FAE518.80202@spree.de> <984C015F-A658-4FE7-A329-E45933E80CE5@Sun.COM> <43FB4FD8.6010002@spree.de> <32625FCB-E11B-4289-B1D0-31158574D9AB@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <32625FCB-E11B-4289-B1D0-31158574D9AB@Sun.COM> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080800090701030506080307" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --------------080800090701030506080307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Craig, I rearranged the elements in orm.dtd to use the same order as in jdo.dtd and found a couple of inconsistencies between orm.dtd and jdo.dtd. The attached patch changes the orm.dtd to match the elements as defined in jdo.dtd: - Added subelement 'property' to element 'class'. - Changed attribute 'strategy' in the element 'version' from REQUIRED to IMPLIED. - Fixed 'implement' subelements. - Fixed order of subelements in elements 'inheritance'. - Restricted the values of attribute 'primary-key' in element 'field'. Please have a look at the patch. If there are no objections I would check in the patch and change orm.xsd accordingly. Regards Michael > Hi Michael, > > On Feb 21, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote: > >> Hi Craig, >> >> [...] >> >>>>> Just one comment. There is no meaning to the order of >>>>> attributes, just order of elements. But there's no issue with >>>>> fixing the order of the attributes either. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I know the order of attributes is not important, but it helps >>>> when comparing the jdo.dtd and the orm.dtd to make sure the orm >>>> dtd accepts a subset of the jdo metatdata :-). Try 'diff jdo.dtd >>>> orm.dtd', I was surprised to see how many differences there are. >>> >>> Good grief. Some of these are line ending differences. :-( >> >> >> I could not find any ^M problems in the files. I think the diffs are >> because the orm.dtd lists the elements in a different order, e.g. >> jdo.dtd lists the element property between interface and class, >> where orm.dtd lists it between column and field. This does not >> affect the accepted XML, it just makes a comparison between the two >> dtds harder. > > > Not ^M differences, but spaces (I think). I just looked at it again > and I can't account for some of the diffs at all. > > But the main point is: good. Thanks for changing the files so they > are as similar as possible. It will make it easier for us. > >> >>>> >>>> Other question: do we want to rename api20/src/dtd to api20/src/ >>>> schema? >>> >>> +1 We need to make sure that the corresponding changes are made to >>> the maven definitions, but I think it's time. >> >> >> OK, I can work on this, but I would like to check in a first version >> of the schema validation test before doing this rename. I attached a >> new patch to JDO-202. > > > Cool. I just looked at your 0220 patch and I think it's time to check > these files in. > > Craig > >> >> Regards Michael >> >> [...] >> -- >> Michael Bouschen Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH >> mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de http://www.tech.spree.de/ >> Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66 >> Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin > > > Craig Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > -- Michael Bouschen Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de http://www.tech.spree.de/ Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66 Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin --------------080800090701030506080307 Content-Type: text/plain; name="orm-060221.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="orm-060221.patch" Index: src/dtd/javax/jdo/orm.dtd =================================================================== --- src/dtd/javax/jdo/orm.dtd (Revision 379573) +++ src/dtd/javax/jdo/orm.dtd (Arbeitskopie) @@ -19,7 +19,19 @@ - + + + + + + + + + + + + + @@ -37,20 +49,20 @@ + + + + + - - - - - - + - + @@ -71,23 +83,11 @@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - + @@ -149,11 +149,6 @@ - - - - - @@ -161,7 +156,13 @@ + + + + + + --------------080800090701030506080307--