Hi, Bill
>> 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.
Ok.
> And just to make sure we're all on the same page, *ALL* of the old dtds
> are still supported, right?
Yes.
> I can use any of the old DOCTYPEs in my
> descriptors, right? Not just from 3.0, but from earlier releases as
> well, right?
Yes. All the existing sun-*.dtds will continue to be supported.
>
>> 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"?
Yeah, this sounds good to me.
Thanks,
- Hong