geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject RE: Version numbers in namespaces
Date Sat, 22 May 2004 15:21:56 GMT
Bill,

I was just writing a follow up to my woefully terse email.  You have covered the exact points
that I wanted to bring up and I am in perfect agreement.


Regards,
Alan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill@dehora.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 9:42 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Version numbers in namespaces
> 
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Interesting.  Personally, I don't care for the #info aspect of the
> > namespace.
> 
> Some background on #:
> 
> In RDF-land (where this idiom comes from), this is considered by a
> number of people as broken and I imagine it's quietly being
> deprecated over the last few years. It's good that people want to
> make readable URIs for the purposes of quick eyeballing, but the
> idea of algorithimically hacking into an opaque name by putting
> markers into it is dubious. It doesn't make things clearer that the
> strings we're using for XML Namespace /names/ are in fact
> /structures/ wrt the Web (but that's a long running and heated
> perma-thread in XML).
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't encourage #fragid use in namespaces - you don't
> need fragment structure for (an opaque) name. Again personally, I
> would disagree with the Cocoon consensus. Mixing XML namespaces and
> document structures is a messy affair.
> 
> Beyond that, current practice seems to be focusing on the idea of
> putting time into names, not version numbers. So you have something
> like this:
> 
>    http://www.apache.org/foo/bar/2004/05/22
>    http://www.apache.org/foo/bar/2004/05
>    http://www.apache.org/foo/bar/2004
> 
> That's useful insofar as it gives flexbility as to how to decide to
> upgrade physical schema wrt a version number. If you use version
> numbers you tie your names into the upgrade strategy of whatever
> versioning policies are in place. Possibly over time, that will not
> be what you want, given that versioning is just about a difficult
> problem as your are likely to find in this industry (it's right up
> there with naming and cache invalidation in my book).
> 
> For example, I do a lot of work with particular XML enveloping
> structure that has embedded "1.0" in its namespace. I dearly wish a
> date had been use as would have avoided interminable confusion and
> deadlock around what were non-breaking and editorial alterations to
> schema. "2001" would have been easier all round.
> 
> If the consensus here is to put version numbers into namespace names
> then I suggest that only the major number is inserted. I also
> suggest that a versioning policy be laid down first. But with dates
> you can defer such policy decisions and/or change them if required.
> 
> cheers
> Bill de hÓra
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message