On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Holger Baxmann - bitwind wrote: > > Bill Burke wrote: > >> LETS TAKE THESE DISCUSSIONS TO JBOSS-DEV PLEASE!!!!! > >> Yes, IMO, migration should be a separate distinct tool/step. We > >> should not be maintaining past versions of deployment descriptors in > >> 4.0, 3.2, or 3.0. Anybody know what other vendors do? > >> Bill > >> Scott M Stark wrote: > >>> That is a possibility that Bill suggested before, but it excludes > >>> the possibility of supporting hot deploy with migration, something > >>> we can do. They will be exposed to xsl if there is a problem with > >>> the migration. Maybe migration should be a separate step. > >>> > >>> Juha Lindfors wrote: > >>> > >>>> Migration yes. But for that XSL would work just as well, you just > >>>> run the > >>>> script to convert between the descriptors, right? The admin is never > >>>> actually exposed to reading or modifying the XSLT... ? > > When does JBoss.org have the meta-model of the whole stuff defined in > XSD and throuw the ugly DTD's away? > Then one is able to appy XSLT on the XSD's and all migration things > belonging to the meta-level are handled by the meta-level.
EJB 2.1 & J2EE 1.4 IIRC -- Juha > > IMHO > > bax > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
