Hi Alan, Sorry I didn't answer your question. I missed that part :-)
Anyway this is what I suggest. After a version is finalized (say geronimo version 1_0) We increment the version# to next version number for all the products. e.g next expected geronimo version is 1_1. Then then we will use 1_1 for all products. Even if there is no change in some of the modules. So though the change is only in naming and no change in jetty still our shcema would look like <web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty_1_1"; xmlns:naming="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/naming_1_1"; configId="..." parentId="..." version="1.1"> Offcourse we won't be able to track intermediate changes. But I don't see a need to track them anyways. Because intermediate changes are during development cycle. So it is possible that during development cycle naming_1_1 schema could keep on changing, but it will still be refered to as version 1.1 Cheers, Sandip --- "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure how that answers my question. In my > example, you'll notice > that there are two Geronimo namespace versions. > What do you put into > the schema version attribute? > > > Regards, > Alan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandip Ghayal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 7:42 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Geronimo Schema Versioning > > > > 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 > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
