I think we ought to go back to my original questions for guidance...
Are these 'new dtds' going to become acceptable to GlassFish Application
Server 3.0? When and how?
If they are not going to be accepted by 3.0, should their doctype imply
that they are acceptable to GlassFish Server 3.0?
Regarding the glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd:
Why would I want to write an xml file that conforms to
glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd instead of writing the file to conform to
glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-1.dtd?
Why would I want to write an xml file that conforms to
glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd instead of writing the file to conform to
sun-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd?
Regarding the 'versioning' of the glassfish dtd files:
I think we might want to also be guided by the following fact, as we
think about the 'version' of the glassfish-* descriptors:
There is no existing version of these descriptors...
They will not exist until the folks start to create apps that target 3.1
specifically.
We could just as easily do this conversion
sun-web-app_3_0-0.dtd --> glassfish-web-app_1_0-0.dtd (or even
glassfish-web-app_3_1-0.dtd)
vbk
Hong Zhang wrote:
> Hi, Vince
> The current plan is to convert all the v3 EE 6 set of the sun dtds
> to glassfish dtds (just change the "sun-" to "glassfish-" and keep the
> same version). Then add any new versions if needed for this release.
> Use the ejb area as an example, the v3 EE 6 sun dtd is
> sun-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd, so we convert it to
> glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd. Now there is a new element needed to be
> added in 3.1 for the dtd, so we created the
> glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-1.dtd for it.
> As we cannot have same DOCTYPE for different dtds, we used
> "Application Server 3.0" for the converted ones, and "Application
> Server 3.1" for the newly added ones.
> I am open to suggestions for this. One alternative is:
> We just have one set of the glassfish dtds in 3.1. If any new change
> is needed in the dtd, we just make it on top of the converted
> contents. And "GlassFish Application Server 3.1" will used in the
> DOCTYPE.
> The question I have for this alternative is what should the dtd
> version be? Should we increment the version, for example, from
> sun-web-app_3_0-0.dtd to glassfish-web-app_3_0-1.dtd even there is no
> content change? Or should we keep the same version for the ones which
> do not have change in the contents: sun-web-app_3_0-0.dtd ->
> glassfish-web-app_3_0-0.dtd, and increment the version for the ones
> which have change in the contents: sun-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd ->
> glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-1.dtd?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Hong
>
>>
>> This is a nit...
>>
>> I have noticed that most of the renamed sun-*.dtd files have doctype
>> info that reads sort of like this
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE glassfish-FOO PUBLIC "-//GlassFish.org//DTD GlassFish
>> Application Server 3.0 FOO X.Y//EN"
>> "http://glassfish.org/dtds/glassfish-foo_x_y-0.dtd">
>>
>> I was a bit surprised.
>>
>> I had kind of expected the doctype info to say something like
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE glassfish-FOO PUBLIC "-//GlassFish.org//DTD GlassFish
>> Application Server 3.1 FOO X.Y//EN"
>> "http://glassfish.org/dtds/glassfish-foo_x_y-0.dtd">
>>
>> Are these 'new dtds' going to become acceptable to GlassFish
>> Application Server 3.0?
>>
>> How and when will that happen?
>>
>> I have also noticed that in some cases, more than 1 'type' of file's
>> dtd is getting transformed into a glassfish-*.dtd.
>>
>> See glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-0.dtd and glassfish-ejb-jar_3_1-1.dtd AND
>> glassfish-resources_1_4.dtd and glassfish-resources_1_5.dtd
>>
>> Are we doing more work than we need to in these two situations?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> vbk
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>