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 Michael Bouschen <mb...@spree.de> on 2007/04/25 22:13:08 UTC
JDO metadata: XSD changes
Hi,
as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and
cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during XML
parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA issue
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472).
Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view:
- Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements,
meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I sent
around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re: XSD woes")
and did not receive any objections.
- Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename the
xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and jdoquery_2_1.xsd.
- For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version number 2.1
(e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and SYSTEM DOCTYPE.
Regards Michael
--
Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33
Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12
10783 Berlin mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-Proefrock
Anna-Kristin Proefrock
Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52
Re: JDO metadata: XSD changes
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
Michael,
I've changed my mind, and now I think we should fix the XSD, having strict
checks and lose flexibility, instead of having the jdo implementation do more
checking. It's just too long to implement/maintain/test, prone to errors and
costs in performance.
I propose the extension element to be placed as last child of the parent
element, and applications upgrading from JDO 2 to JDO 2.1 could use a PMF
vendor property to disable XSD validation if their schema is not valid
By the way, the DTD in the JDO 2 spec document refers to JDO 1 DTD instead of
JDO 2 DTD.
Regards,
Quoting Michael Bouschen <mb...@spree.de>:
> Hi,
>
> as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and
> cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during XML
> parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA issue
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472).
>
> Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view:
> - Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements,
> meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I sent
> around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re: XSD woes")
> and did not receive any objections.
> - Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename the
> xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and jdoquery_2_1.xsd.
> - For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version number 2.1
> (e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and SYSTEM DOCTYPE.
>
> Regards Michael
>
> --
> Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33
> Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12
> 10783 Berlin mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de
>
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-Proefrock
> Anna-Kristin Proefrock
> Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52
>
>
JDO metadata: XSD changes
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
After discussing this issue, there don't appear to be any objections.
Go ahead with the changes.
Craig
On Apr 25, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and
> cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during
> XML parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA
> issue http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472).
>
> Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view:
> - Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements,
> meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I
> sent around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re:
> XSD woes") and did not receive any objections.
> - Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename
> the xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and
> jdoquery_2_1.xsd.
> - For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version
> number 2.1 (e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and
> SYSTEM DOCTYPE.
>
> Regards Michael
>
> --
> Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33
> Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-12
> 10783 Berlin mailto:mbo.tech@spree.de
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-Proefrock
> Anna-Kristin Proefrock
> Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!