Thorsten Scherler pisze:
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 09:26 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Joerg Heinicke schrieb:
[…]
XML NAMESPACES
-------------------------------
Corona currently uses three different namespaces in XML documents:
http://apache.org/cocoon/corona/sitemap
http://apache.org/cocoon/corona/servlet
http://apache.org/cocoon/corona/controller
These namespaces are without a version number.
Since I don't see how version numbers could help, I propose
http://apache.org/cocoon/sitemap
http://apache.org/cocoon/servlet
http://apache.org/cocoon/controller
I know I'm rather late ...
Don't these version numbers just help in the same way as versioned jars
help? It's possible to signal additional functionality or
incompatibilities. Just look at the Spring framework.
IMO version numbers in namespaces do more harm than good. From a user's
point of view it needs much concentration to avoid mistakes if more than
one namespace is available for a particular markup. If the namespace
changes when functionality is added (e.g., a document format becomes
more expressive), it's not backwards compatible anymore, i.e. components
handling the namespace have to be updated.
If the changes are not backwards-compatible:
In some cases additional markup can be used to express the version (like
for instance the version attribute in XSLT). Where this is not possible,
it might make sense to create a new meaningful namespace URI.
I totally agree with Andreas regarding the versions in ns.
http://cocoon.apache.org/subprojects/configuration/1.0/spring-configurator/2.0/1303_1_1.html
I expected since I am now using Cocoon Spring Configurator 2.0 I needed
to update as well
http://cocoon.apache.org/schema/configurator/cocoon-configurator-1.0.1.xsd to
http://cocoon.apache.org/schema/configurator/cocoon-configurator-2.0.0.xsd
but that is not the case. Which is kind of confusing.
Actually, you should update the schema but the schema is located at
http://cocoon.apache.org/schema/configurator/cocoon-configurator-1.1.0.xsd
because we planned to release 1.1.0 instead of 2.0.0 and once decision was made to release 2.0.0 it
was forgotten to rename this file.
Could you take care of it?
BTW since we are now using 2.5 shouldn't we update our config files to
reflect this?
Probably a good idea.
--
Grzegorz Kossakowski
