geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sandip Ghayal <sgha...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: Geronimo Schema Versioning
Date Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:41:31 GMT
I do agree the need to have versioning.

Any format is fine that helps me identify the version.

And I also suppor the point that version number should
follow Geronimo Version number. 

Cheers,

Sandip
--- "Alan D. Cabrera" <adc@toolazydogs.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:ferret@frii.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:06 PM
> > To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Geronimo Schema Versioning
> > 
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > > All,
> > > 	I suggest we add the "Geronimo version number"
> to our schema
> file
> > > names and namespaces.  For example, a Geronimo
> Jetty header
> currently
> > > looks like this:
> > >
> > > <web-app
> > >    
> xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty"
> > >    
>
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming"
> > >     configId="..." parentId="...">
> > >
> > > 	And I'm thinking it ought to be more like this:
> > >
> > > <web-app
> > >    
>
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty_1_0"
> > >    
>
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_0"
> > >     configId="..."  parentId="..." >
> > >
> > > 	Or else like this:
> > >
> > > <web-app
> > >    
>
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/web/jetty"
> > >    
>
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/naming"
> > >     configId="..."  parentId="..." >
> > >
> > > 	I'm thinking 2 or 3 release down the road, when
> we'll want to be
> > > able to look at a deployment plan and identify
> which release it was
> > > developed against, since the deployment plan
> format will surely
> change
> > as
> > > we go.  It will also let us put the Schemas on
> our web site and
> there
> > > would be a more obvious correspondance between
> the namespace and the
> > > schema location.
> > 
> > I concur with Aaron and I vote for option number
> three with one
> > addition. IMO, I think that we should add the
> schema version attribute
> > like so:
> > 
> >    <web-app
> >       
>
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/web/jetty"
> >       
>
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/1.0/naming"
> >        configId="..."  parentId="..."
> >        version="1.0">
> > 
> > I also have one question for you, Aaron. Should
> the directory name and
> > the schema version atribute follow the Geronimo
> version? I would argue
> > that it should so that we don't wind up with
> Geronimo at, say, version
> > 2.3 and the schema version attribute and the
> directory at, say,
> version
> > 4.1. Keeping these items in sync with the overall
> Geronimo version
> will
> > save a lot of trouble in the long run.
> 
> I prefer option two; I do not like dots in my path. 
> 
> 
> I think I have a scenario were your proposal about
> the schema version
> attribute will not hold up.  Let's say that we've
> added some wizbang
> feature to
> http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_1.  Now,
> I want to
> deploy this new feature in my web app:
> 
> <web-app
>    
>
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty_1_0"
>    
>
xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_1"
>     configId="..."  parentId="..."
>     version="1.?">
> 
> What schema version attribute should we use?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message