I prefer 2 as either the name change or the content change could be
considered an upgrade of the previous version. It's a little weird to me
that we use "-0" for the cases where there is content change. But I am
ok with both 1 and 2. What do other people think?
Thanks,
- Hong
On 5/29/2010 6:20 PM, vince kraemer wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>