Sandip,
I don't think Alan is saying that the schemas shouldn't have a
version in their name. I think he's saying that there doesn't need to be
a separate "version" attribute *on top of* the version numbers in the
schema names. That's certainly what I'm saying, in any case. I think
having the separate "version" attribute directly contradicts your points
below:
1. It obfuscates the versions that are being used. You can use a
"version" tag incompatible with the schema versions. What does that
mean?
2. It adds extra steps to changing your deployment plans
3. It has no effect on older versions, since Geronimo will most likely
operate using the correct schema version, so having another version on
top of that doesn't really add any new information.
Aaron
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Sandip Ghayal wrote:
> I think there is a compelling reason to have proper
> version number.
>
> 1. It identifies what versions are being used. Allows
> ease of mixing and matching the modules.
> 2. Ease when changing. One more barrier to simple
> mistakes when changing the schema.
> 3. Allows users of older version of geronimo to still
> compile there local changes without having to worry
> about files being changed on apache's website. (as
> they have version#)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sandip
>
>
>
> --- "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think that that is too complex. What scenario do
> > people envision
> > where having a schema version attribute is a
> > compelling feature? If
> > there is none, or we struggle to make one up, then
> > we don't need to
> > figure out how to "fit" this feature in.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sandip Ghayal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:42 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: Geronimo Schema Versioning
> > >
> > > Or we can have 3 version numbers where the tag
> > >
> > > version=
> > >
> > > specified Geronimo Version number which will be
> > > incremented afer every version release.
> > >
> > > So if some one is looking at differences between
> > two
> > > version of geronimo, he will be able to point out
> > > easily that geronimo verions 2.0 used naming
> > version
> > > 1_1 and jetty version 1_0
> > >
> > > where as geronimo version 1.0 used naming version
> > 1_0
> > > and jetty version 1_0
> > >
> > > This should also satisfy Alan's query.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think ?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Sandip
> > > --- Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > > > > 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.?">
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I like the "version=X" attribute.
> > I
> > > > think having a
> > > > version number in the schema is good enough. If
> > > > you're deploying a web
> > > > app 2.4 schema with a Geronimo Jetty 1.0
> > deployment
> > > > descriptor, I think we
> > > > have all the information we need, and in the
> > example
> > > > above, having
> > > > *three* version numbers in the header certainly
> > > > doesn't make things any
> > > > clearer (or further narrow down exactly which
> > schema
> > > > files we're
> > > > targeting).
> > > >
> > > > Aaron
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > finish.
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
