Hong Zhang wrote on 05/28/10 09:57 AM:
> 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.
That's what I would recommend.
And just to make sure we're all on the same page, *ALL* of the old dtds
are still supported, right? I can use any of the old DOCTYPEs in my
descriptors, right? Not just from 3.0, but from earlier releases as
well, right?
> 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?
I don't think it matters either way. I can see arguments for both
approaches.
Perhaps the "simply renamed" ones should be "-0", and the "new content"
ones should be "-1"?