You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jdo-dev@db.apache.org by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> on 2022/03/26 00:05:06 UTC
[IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Hi,
These questions need immediate answers:
1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806?
2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1?
3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers?
4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page?
My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Craig
Craig L Russell
javadog.clr@gmail.com
1220 University Ave
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by Michael Bouschen <mb...@apache.org>.
Hi Craig,
the changes are checked in into the the branch JDO-806 (not JDO-807 -
typo in my first email) and part of PR #40. I'll wait whether there is
some more feedback and then merge the PR into the main branch.
I noticed the mailer changed my definitions of the xsd elements and
added some URLS in brackets (e.g.
<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>). So I added them to a text file,
you find it attached below. I think this is useful when we update the spec.
Regards Michael
> Hi,
>
> I have to confess ignorance on the proper use of http, https, and xsi:schemaLocation in the definitions.
>
> It looks fine, and IIUC would not need anything else for me to use as is for JDO-806.
>
> So it is fine for me to continue.
>
> I didn't look in detail at how you structured the new test, but fine by me to push this.
>
> Regards,
> Craig
>
>> On Mar 27, 2022, at 8:47 AM, Bouschen, Michael <Mi...@akquinet.de.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I changed the JDO metadata files to make use of of the apache URL for schemaLocation of JDO XSDs and JDO DOCTYPEs, please see PR #40 in branch JDO-807 for details.
>>
>> I could successfully compile and run the tck with datanucleus as we used it with JDO 3.2.
>>
>> Here is the declaration of the elements jdo, orm, jdoquery and jdoconfig I used:
>>
>> <jdo xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>>
>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>>
>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>
>> https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.xsd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.xsd>">
> ...
>> When using a document type descriptor the DOCTYPE is as follows:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE jdo PUBLIC
>> "-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Metadata 3.2//EN"
>> "https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd>"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd>>>
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE jdo SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I have to confess ignorance on the proper use of http, https, and xsi:schemaLocation in the definitions.
It looks fine, and IIUC would not need anything else for me to use as is for JDO-806.
So it is fine for me to continue.
I didn't look in detail at how you structured the new test, but fine by me to push this.
Regards,
Craig
> On Mar 27, 2022, at 8:47 AM, Bouschen, Michael <Mi...@akquinet.de.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I changed the JDO metadata files to make use of of the apache URL for schemaLocation of JDO XSDs and JDO DOCTYPEs, please see PR #40 in branch JDO-807 for details.
>
> I could successfully compile and run the tck with datanucleus as we used it with JDO 3.2.
>
> Here is the declaration of the elements jdo, orm, jdoquery and jdoconfig I used:
>
> <jdo xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>>
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>>
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>
> https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.xsd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.xsd>">
...
> When using a document type descriptor the DOCTYPE is as follows:
>
> <!DOCTYPE jdo PUBLIC
> "-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Metadata 3.2//EN"
> "https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd>"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd <https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd>>>
>
> <!DOCTYPE jdo SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd>>
>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by "Bouschen, Michael" <Mi...@akquinet.de.INVALID>.
Hi,
I changed the JDO metadata files to make use of of the apache URL for schemaLocation of JDO XSDs and JDO DOCTYPEs, please see PR #40 in branch JDO-807 for details.
I could successfully compile and run the tck with datanucleus as we used it with JDO 3.2.
Here is the declaration of the elements jdo, orm, jdoquery and jdoconfig I used:
<jdo xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo>
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>
xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdo
https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.xsd">
<orm xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/orm"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/orm>
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>
xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/orm
https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/orm_3_2.xsd">
<jdoquery xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdoquery"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdoquery>
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>
xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdoquery
https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoquery_3_2.xsd">
<jdoconfig xmlns="http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdoconfig"<http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/jdo/jdoconfig>
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance>
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoconfig_3_2.xsd"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoconfig_3_2.xsd>>
When using a document type descriptor the DOCTYPE is as follows:
<!DOCTYPE jdo PUBLIC
"-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Metadata 3.2//EN"
"https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdo_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE jdo SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/jdo_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE orm PUBLIC
"-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Mapping Metadata 3.2//EN"
"https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/orm_3_2.dtd"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/orm_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE orm SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/orm_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/orm_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE jdoquery PUBLIC
"-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Query Metadata 3.2//EN"
"https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoquery_3_2.dtd"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoquery_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE jdoquery SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/jdoquery_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/jdoquery_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE jdoconfig PUBLIC
"-//The Apache Software Foundation//DTD Java Data Objects Configuration 3.2//EN"
"https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoconfig_3_2.dtd"<https://db.apache.org/jdo/xmlns/jdoconfig_3_2.dtd>>
<!DOCTYPE jdoconfig SYSTEM "file:/javax/jdo/jdoconfig_3_2.dtd"<file:/javax/jdo/jdoconfig_3_2.dtd>>
Regards Michael
On Mar 26, 2022, at 1:05 PM, Tilmann <ti...@gmx.de> wrote:
I vote yes, yes, yes, yes.
I do not quite [IMPORTANT] understand though, why is this urgent?
Mostly because I wanted to get started and either use main or a separate branch.
Based on Michael's comments, I'll create a branch just so we can review the entire set of changes in a PR.
Thanks,
Craig
Regards,
Til
On 26/03/2022 18:28, Bouschen, Michael wrote:
Hi Craig,
I agree and also vote for yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Some additional remarks:
- There is no need to create a branch 3.2.1 as long as there is no parallel activity for JDO 3.3. So for we could continue on the main branch.
- About the typo: sorry my bad!
- We should also update the schema descriptor and the document type descriptor in chapters 11 and 18 of the specification as described in JDO-806.
I plan to work on updating the .jdo, .orm, .jdoconfig, .jdoquery files to use the apache URL.
Regards Michael
Hi,
These questions need immediate answers:
1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806?
2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1?
3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers?
4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page?
My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Craig
Craig L Russell
javadog.clr@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
1220 University Ave
San Jose, CA 95126
--
Michael Bouschen
akquinet tech@spree GmbH
Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 235520-33
Fax: +49 30 217520-12
E-Mail: michael.bouschen@akquinet.de<ma...@akquinet.de>
Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de><http://www.akquinet.de/><http://www.akquinet.de/>
I
Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming
Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet><http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag><https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag><https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet><https://twitter.com/akquinet>
Craig L Russell
javadog.clr@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
1220 University Ave
San Jose, CA 95126
--
Michael Bouschen
akquinet tech@spree GmbH
Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 235520-33
Fax: +49 30 217520-12
E-Mail: michael.bouschen@akquinet.de<ma...@akquinet.de>
Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de/>
Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming
Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet>
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 1:05 PM, Tilmann <ti...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I vote yes, yes, yes, yes.
>
> I do not quite [IMPORTANT] understand though, why is this urgent?
Mostly because I wanted to get started and either use main or a separate branch.
Based on Michael's comments, I'll create a branch just so we can review the entire set of changes in a PR.
Thanks,
Craig
>
> Regards,
> Til
>
> On 26/03/2022 18:28, Bouschen, Michael wrote:
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> I agree and also vote for yes, yes, yes, and yes.
>>
>> Some additional remarks:
>> - There is no need to create a branch 3.2.1 as long as there is no parallel activity for JDO 3.3. So for we could continue on the main branch.
>> - About the typo: sorry my bad!
>> - We should also update the schema descriptor and the document type descriptor in chapters 11 and 18 of the specification as described in JDO-806.
>>
>> I plan to work on updating the .jdo, .orm, .jdoconfig, .jdoquery files to use the apache URL.
>>
>> Regards Michael
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> These questions need immediate answers:
>>
>> 1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806?
>> 2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1?
>> 3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers?
>> 4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page?
>>
>> My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> javadog.clr@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
>> 1220 University Ave
>> San Jose, CA 95126
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Bouschen
>> akquinet tech@spree GmbH
>> Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
>> Tel: +49 30 235520-33
>> Fax: +49 30 217520-12
>>
>> E-Mail: michael.bouschen@akquinet.de<ma...@akquinet.de>
>> Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de/>
>> I
>> Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming
>> Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680
>>
>> [Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet>
Craig L Russell
javadog.clr@gmail.com
1220 University Ave
San Jose, CA 95126
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by Tilmann <ti...@gmx.de>.
I vote yes, yes, yes, yes.
I do not quite [IMPORTANT] understand though, why is this urgent?
Regards,
Til
On 26/03/2022 18:28, Bouschen, Michael wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> I agree and also vote for yes, yes, yes, and yes.
>
> Some additional remarks:
> - There is no need to create a branch 3.2.1 as long as there is no parallel activity for JDO 3.3. So for we could continue on the main branch.
> - About the typo: sorry my bad!
> - We should also update the schema descriptor and the document type descriptor in chapters 11 and 18 of the specification as described in JDO-806.
>
> I plan to work on updating the .jdo, .orm, .jdoconfig, .jdoquery files to use the apache URL.
>
> Regards Michael
>
>
> Hi,
>
> These questions need immediate answers:
>
> 1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806?
> 2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1?
> 3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers?
> 4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page?
>
> My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
>
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> javadog.clr@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> 1220 University Ave
> San Jose, CA 95126
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Bouschen
> akquinet tech@spree GmbH
> Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
> Tel: +49 30 235520-33
> Fax: +49 30 217520-12
>
> E-Mail: michael.bouschen@akquinet.de<ma...@akquinet.de>
> Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de/>
> I
> Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming
> Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680
>
> [Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet>
Re: [IMPORTANT] questions for xsd and dtd file changes
Posted by "Bouschen, Michael" <Mi...@akquinet.de.INVALID>.
Hi Craig,
I agree and also vote for yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Some additional remarks:
- There is no need to create a branch 3.2.1 as long as there is no parallel activity for JDO 3.3. So for we could continue on the main branch.
- About the typo: sorry my bad!
- We should also update the schema descriptor and the document type descriptor in chapters 11 and 18 of the specification as described in JDO-806.
I plan to work on updating the .jdo, .orm, .jdoconfig, .jdoquery files to use the apache URL.
Regards Michael
Hi,
These questions need immediate answers:
1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806?
2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1?
3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers?
4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page?
My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Craig
Craig L Russell
javadog.clr@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
1220 University Ave
San Jose, CA 95126
--
Michael Bouschen
akquinet tech@spree GmbH
Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 235520-33
Fax: +49 30 217520-12
E-Mail: michael.bouschen@akquinet.de<ma...@akquinet.de>
Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de/>
I
Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming
Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet>