geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: partial revert on schema versioning changes??
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:45:22 GMT

On Oct 4, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:

> Are applications containing plans that reference the old namespace 
> still supported since the schema versioning changes went in?
> When versioning the schemas, shouldn't just renaming the file and 
> setting the version attribute for the schema be all that is 
> necessary?.  Why was it necessary for all the uris to change as well 
> to include the "-1.0" suffix?  Could we remove this in HEAD?

I don't think so.  I think we need schema namespaces that include the 
version information in some form.
> I bring this up (a little late) because tooling build is broken at the 
> moment due to these uri name changes.  EMF uses the namespace uri to 
> generate the package names for the model.  EMF doesn't do a great job 
> of processing uri's containing non alpha or numeric characters and now 
> all the generated packaged names contain segments such as "_1". All 
> the code that reference this generated model code no longer compile 
> due to these package renames.  Also there are some other problems, 
> such as the generated class names for some of the EMF specific classes 
> aren't named correctly to convention thus making it very error prone 
> and difficult to code against.

XMLBeans solves this problem with a configuration file that lets you 
map namespaces to packages.  An example:

<xb:config xmlns:xb=""



I think namespaces with non-alpha characters are a fact of life and EMF 
should support them.
> As a temporary solution, I will probably need to branch off for m5, 
> and do one of several workarounds, one of which is to have hand 
> modified versions of the schema's and feed those to EMF rather then 
> the original versioned ones.  (As long as the old uris are still 
> supported). If not then, I'll have to take a much more painful 
> approach.  Either way, would it be possible to revert back to the 
> original uri's in HEAD?

I would rather not.  I think that using de-versioned copies of the 
schemas is your best bet for now, but I really think the only 
reasonable long term solution is to make EMF more flexible.

david jencks

> Again, my apologies for not catching this sooner.
> Sachin

View raw message