geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cabrera, Alan" <>
Subject RE: Schema target name space
Date Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:18:34 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Mulder [] 
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > The schema target namespace seems to be 
> > Shouldn't it be 
> >
> 	I think we need to discuss this.  I originally thought 
> to use the  
> address.  But I've been burned by the changing DTDs of 
> "certain other products" enough that I then decided it should 
> be something more like 
>> /1.4/ where the 
> first version is the product version and the 
> second version is the J2EE version or something, since we'll 
> need to support several J2EE versions in each Geronimo 
> version (though of course only one of them uses schemas so far).

My experience with namespaces that do not have a version number has been
frustrating also. 

While I do agree that a version number should be in the URI, it is not clear
to me that we need a cross product of Geronimo version ids w/ J2EE version
ids.  Will we really have that kind of backward compatibility whereby we
need that kind of cross product?  If we did, it would strike me that we are
doing something wrong.

> 	But I think many of the Geronimo schemas were changed 
> to use the 
> Sun namespace so they would all appear in one pool with the 
> Sun tags.  
> That is, you could use:
> <entity>
>   <ejb-name>foo</ejb-name>
>   <jndi-name>bar</jndi-name>
> </entity>

This is a bad thing for a number of reasons.  First, there is no way for the
casual reader to understand which elements are Sun's vanilla J2EE elements
and which ones are Geronimo's enhanced J2EE elements.  Second, it is
extremely bad form to dump your own elements into someone else's copyrighted
namespace and, worse, modify someone else's copyrighted elements and dump
them back in into someone else's copyrighted namespace.  It may possibly be

> 	Anyway, my preference would be to declare all the 
> Geronimo tags in a Geronimo namespace.  If every app server 
> decided to put its custom tags in the J2EE namespace, there 
> could be some fairly unpleasant collisions.  
> I'm not yet decided whether we should repeat all the base Sun 
> tags in a big set of copy schemas (ick), or force the use of 
> namespaces within the Geronimo DD (ick).  I guess my real 
> preference is to split the DDs back up again so that's not a 
> problem.  :)

+1 - namespaces within the Geronimo DD 


      Visit our Internet site at 

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit <> 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual sender,
except  where  the sender specifically states them to be the views of The
Reuters Group.

View raw message