From jdo-dev-return-5693-apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive=www.apache.org@db.apache.org Thu Apr 26 18:30:56 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-jdo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40035 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2007 18:30:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Apr 2007 18:30:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 26806 invoked by uid 500); 26 Apr 2007 18:31:03 -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 26795 invoked by uid 99); 26 Apr 2007 18:31:02 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:31:02 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.148.213.132] (HELO smtp.mailix.net) (216.148.213.132) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:55 -0700 Received: from [192.168.8.8] (helo=localhost) by smtp.mailix.net with asmtp (Exim 4.24-H) id 1Hh8jg-0005YY-U3; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:32 -0700 Received: from 23.125-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (23.125-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.240.125.23]) by webmail.jpox.org (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1177612229.4630efc5e21bf@webmail.jpox.org> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:29 -0700 From: Erik Bengtson To: JDO Expert Group , Apache JDO project References: <462FB654.8010707@spree.de> In-Reply-To: <462FB654.8010707@spree.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 X-Originating-IP: 81.240.125.23 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: erik@jpox.org Subject: Re: JDO metadata: XSD changes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.1 (built Thu Oct 23 13:26:47 PDT 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; Unknown failure X-uvscan-result: clean (1Hh8jg-0005YY-U3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Michael, I've changed my mind, and now I think we should fix the XSD, having strict checks and lose flexibility, instead of having the jdo implementation do more checking. It's just too long to implement/maintain/test, prone to errors and costs in performance. I propose the extension element to be placed as last child of the parent element, and applications upgrading from JDO 2 to JDO 2.1 could use a PMF vendor property to disable XSD validation if their schema is not valid By the way, the DTD in the JDO 2 spec document refers to JDO 1 DTD instead of JDO 2 DTD. Regards, Quoting Michael Bouschen : > Hi, > > as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and > cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during XML > parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA issue > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472). > > Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view: > - Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements, > meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I sent > around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re: XSD woes") > and did not receive any objections. > - Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename the > xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and jdoquery_2_1.xsd. > - For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version number 2.1 > (e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and SYSTEM DOCTYPE. > > Regards Michael > > -- > Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33 > Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12 > 10783 Berlin mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de > > Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-Proefrock > Anna-Kristin Proefrock > Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52 > >