Hi,
To be honest I'm used to always read the schema only when needed and in a
browser.
The paper is painful to read such documents.
So, I would say: get rid of the xsd and just add a reference.
I understand Antonio's comment. So if others want to keep the schema in,
that's ok for me.
Jean-Louis
2012/6/21 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
> Hum.... even if I don't find it DRY I would leave it just for consistency
> reason. JPA 2.0 has an entire chapter on the xsd of the persistence.xml and
> the ORM mapping. Same thing for JSF about the faces-config. As a "Java EE
> specification reader" I would like all the specs to look the same so to
> either describe their XSD or not to describe them, but all in a consistent
> way.
>
> My 2 cents
> Antonio
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Experts,
>>
>> To reduce the overhead in maintaining the ejb-jar deployment descriptor
>> schema in 2 locations as we have it today: under svn source control (
>> svn.java.net) and in the specification itself, I propose to replace the
>> full schema in the specification with the reference to the location where
>> it will be found.
>>
>> This should also reduce the size of the spec document by about 50 pages.
>>
>> Please let me know if you think I should not make this change.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
> Blog <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>| Paris
> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org>
>