No.
I described three different approaches:
1. They're all named glassfish-FOO_X_Y-0.dtd.
2. They're all named glassfish-FOO_X_Y-1.dtd.
3. The ones that are only renamed are named glassfish-FOO_X_Y-0.dtd,
the ones that have other content changes are named glassfish-FOO_X_Y-1.dtd.
I actually think any of these are fine, but the one I was suggesting in a
much earlier message was #3. The disadvantage of #3 is that, during the
development of 3.1, the -0 version might disappear and be replaced with a
-1 version, which forces an incompatibility even if the content change is
upwards compatible. So maybe #3 isn't the best choice.
If you want to bet that most content changes will be upwards compatible
(probably a reasonable bet), #1 or #2 would be better. I don't have a
preference between #1 and #2. If most people prefer #1, that's fine with
me.
vince kraemer wrote on 05/28/2010 11:45 PM:
> OK.
>
> So, it looks like you are saying the glassfish-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd files
> should...
>
> 1. have file names that end with "-0.dtd" for the planned GlassFish
> Server 3.1 release regardless of whether they are 'just copies of
> sun-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd' or are copies of sun-FOO_X_Y-Z.dtd that have been
> modified, AND
> 2. the doctype info in those dtd files should look something like this:
>
> <!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">
>
> Is that a correct assessment of what you have concluded?
>
> Thanks,
> vbk
>
> Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Hong Zhang wrote on 05/28/2010 06:01 PM:
>>>> The tools, for instance, absolutely should not be generating
>>>> descriptors
>>>> that match these new DTDs by default. Use the old DTDs, they still
>>>> work.
>>> But if we want to encourage users to start using the new
>>> glassfish-*.dtd and move away from the sun-*.dtd, the tools probably
>>> should use the recommended set of the dtds? Also if there are new
>>> elements introduced in 3.1, the tools want to make them available to
>>> the users too?
>>
>> Yes, after we finalize them.
>>
>>>> If you need to use the new DTDs, expect them to change until the
>>>> code is
>>>> frozen.
>>> Yes, agreed. There is always chance of them changing between now to
>>> code freeze.
>>> What about we use "-1" at the end for all the glassfish-*.dtd? The
>>> contents could still change, but there will be less chance for
>>> incompatible changes when adding new elements, and we could make
>>> things a little easier for the tools.
>>
>> I don't see how using "-1" for all of them makes any difference.
>> It doesn't reduce, or increase, the likelihood of incompatible changes.
>> And I don't see how it makes it any easier for tools.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>