You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> on 2005/10/03 16:52:04 UTC
Question about changes from (GERONIMO-957) Add version numbers to Geronimo schemas
Just noticed that the following client plans were not updated to use
the new versioned schemas -
j2ee-client-corba-plan.xml
j2ee-client-security-plan.xml
but the following was updated -
j2ee-client-plan.xml
Is this by design? Will this still allow us to support/recognize
older clients connecting to newer servers?
-Donald
--- "David Jencks (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org> wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957?page=all ]
>
> David Jencks closed GERONIMO-957:
> ---------------------------------
>
> Resolution: Fixed
>
> Head rev 292333
> Many openejb changes
> M5 rev 292376
> openejb M5 changes are committed.
>
> versions on both schemas and files are -1.0 or -2.0 (for openejb)
>
> > Add version numbers to Geronimo schemas
> > ---------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: GERONIMO-957
> > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957
> > Project: Geronimo
> > Type: Improvement
> > Components: deployment
> > Versions: 1.0-M4
> > Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> > Assignee: David Jencks
> > Fix For: 1.0-M5
>
> >
> > The Geronimo & OpenEJB schemas currently have no version number
> in the namespace or the file name. This means that when we have
> multiple versions of Geronimo,
> > * It will not be possible to store schemas from different
> versions in the same directory (e.g. to include new and old formats
> in the schemas/ dir or post them all at a web URL)
> > * It will also not be possible to tell from reading a schema
> what version it applies to (unless perhaps we do this with
> comments?)
> > * When writing an application plan, it won't be possible to
> indicate which version of the Geronimo schemas it complies with
> > * When Geronimo is parsing a plan, it won't know if the plan was
> written to a current or older version of the schemas
> > At a minimum, I'd like to add a version number to the schema file
> name. However, the greatest advantage is in adding it to the
> namespace as well.
> > An alternative is to take the J2EE approach of leaving the
> namespace the same and adding a "version" attribute to the
> top-level element in every file. However, that seems less
> attractive to me since we have so many schema imports (security,
> naming, etc.) and it would be unfortunate to need to repeat the
> version on every ejb-ref tag and so on, or to automatically assume
> that all the imports follow the same version as the containing
> schema (especially for something like OpenEJB which is on a
> different version track than Geronimo).
> > If we defer adding a version in any way for v1.0, I think we'll
> end up wanting to do it later, and it doesn't seem too nice to have
> "unversioned" mean "1.0" when all subsequent releases are
> versioned.
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the
> administrators:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
> -
> For more information on JIRA, see:
> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Question about changes from (GERONIMO-957) Add version numbers to Geronimo schemas
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Oct 3, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Just noticed that the following client plans were not updated to use
> the new versioned schemas -
> j2ee-client-corba-plan.xml
> j2ee-client-security-plan.xml
These should probably be updated although they do work as is.
>
> but the following was updated -
> j2ee-client-plan.xml
>
> Is this by design? Will this still allow us to support/recognize
> older clients connecting to newer servers?
Old instance documents should continue to be deployable, but the new
schema namespaces are definitely better to use as they should allow
other tools to validate your schemas. Of course if you use such tools
you will also have to include namespaces for gbeans, dependencies,
naming, security, etc which are otherwise unnecessary.
I wonder if we should look into generating schemas for validation
purposes that include everything under the same namespace?
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> -Donald
>
> --- "David Jencks (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957?page=all ]
>>
>> David Jencks closed GERONIMO-957:
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> Resolution: Fixed
>>
>> Head rev 292333
>> Many openejb changes
>> M5 rev 292376
>> openejb M5 changes are committed.
>>
>> versions on both schemas and files are -1.0 or -2.0 (for openejb)
>>
>>> Add version numbers to Geronimo schemas
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: GERONIMO-957
>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-957
>>> Project: Geronimo
>>> Type: Improvement
>>> Components: deployment
>>> Versions: 1.0-M4
>>> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
>>> Assignee: David Jencks
>>> Fix For: 1.0-M5
>>
>>>
>>> The Geronimo & OpenEJB schemas currently have no version number
>> in the namespace or the file name. This means that when we have
>> multiple versions of Geronimo,
>>> * It will not be possible to store schemas from different
>> versions in the same directory (e.g. to include new and old formats
>> in the schemas/ dir or post them all at a web URL)
>>> * It will also not be possible to tell from reading a schema
>> what version it applies to (unless perhaps we do this with
>> comments?)
>>> * When writing an application plan, it won't be possible to
>> indicate which version of the Geronimo schemas it complies with
>>> * When Geronimo is parsing a plan, it won't know if the plan was
>> written to a current or older version of the schemas
>>> At a minimum, I'd like to add a version number to the schema file
>> name. However, the greatest advantage is in adding it to the
>> namespace as well.
>>> An alternative is to take the J2EE approach of leaving the
>> namespace the same and adding a "version" attribute to the
>> top-level element in every file. However, that seems less
>> attractive to me since we have so many schema imports (security,
>> naming, etc.) and it would be unfortunate to need to repeat the
>> version on every ejb-ref tag and so on, or to automatically assume
>> that all the imports follow the same version as the containing
>> schema (especially for something like OpenEJB which is on a
>> different version track than Geronimo).
>>> If we defer adding a version in any way for v1.0, I think we'll
>> end up wanting to do it later, and it doesn't seem too nice to have
>> "unversioned" mean "1.0" when all subsequent releases are
>> versioned.
>>
>> --
>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> -
>> If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the
>> administrators:
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
>> -
>> For more information on JIRA, see:
>> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
>>
>>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>