OK. Thanks for the clarification.
I am fine with strategy 1 or 2, also... though I prefer strategy 1.
Thanks,
vbk
Bill Shannon wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>