HI Ethan.
This was my error as I was in a hurry. I meant to take that XXX out
before I sent my email...
Sorry about the confusion.
Thanks,
Jack
Ethan Quach wrote:
>
>
> Ethan Quach wrote:
>>
>> Jack Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> The AI manifest will be implanted with a version number when
>>> installadm runs.
>>> XXX See Ethans email about why he is against this.
>>> To the question of whether the AI manifest should have a second
>>> version number
>>
>>
>> I don't recall saying I was against this. In fact I don't recall what
>> this "second version number" is. I wasn't able to make this meeting
>> so if I missed something, I think I need a better summary here.
>
> Oh, if what you were referring to here was tracking the schema
> version as a comment line in the schema file, then yes, I said I didn't
> like this. It's not a very elegant solution and I thought we should
> avoid this if possible.
>
>
> -ethan
>
>>
>>>
>>> A new method of versioning was put on the table:
>>>
>>> Each element and attribute in the schema would be assigned a version
>>> number.
>>> The manifest would be assigned a single version number. Version
>>> checking would
>>> verify that the manifest version was equal to the highest version
>>> number in the
>>> schema.
>>
>>
>> My concern about using annotations is the complexity it may add.
>> Afaik, annotations are used in conjunction with namespaces, and
>> that made it a non-starter for me. Simple changes to the schema
>> like "add a new element" may be easy to track, but changes like
>> moving or restructuring elements, or changing elements' meaning
>> seemed like it would add complexity to the compatibility matrix.
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> -ethan
>> _______________________________________________
>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
