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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 5:06 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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
