Menu
▾
▴
Re [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning
|
From: <jue...@we...> - 2004-02-17 10:30:31
|
Any opinions on the exact naming of the DTD file? I'd like to commit the = change promptly :-) =20 Juergen =20 ________________________________ Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag = von j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT] Gesendet: Mo 16.02.2004 08:40 An: spr...@li... Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning Colin, Rod, I've just adapted BeansDtdResolver to fall back to the default DTD file = "spring-beans_1_0.dtd" if "spring-beans.dtd" was specified, issuing a = corresponding message at INFO level (not committed yet). I guess INFO is = appropriate, as "spring-beans" can simply be considered a shortcut for = "spring-beans_1_0" for the time being. If we agree on the exact naming that Colin proposed, I'll commit this = and adapt all our bean definition declarations in the samples etc. The = only alternative that I see is "spring-beans-1.0.dtd" as used by = Hibernate's DTDs, while "_1_0" is the style used by Sun's DTDs. IMO, "spring-beans.dtd" should also stay available from the website, = simply adding the versioned DTD file there. Juergen ________________________________ Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag = von Rod Johnson Gesendet: So 15.02.2004 17:18 An: spr...@li... Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning Colin I agree about versioning, so long as we can avoid breaking people's definitions. We could have only the new URL on the web site and modify = the entity resolver so that it produces a log warning on finding the old one (but still resolved it). This should provide a deprecation-style upgrade path. Regards, Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...> To: <spr...@li...> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:26 PM Subject: [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning > I updated the DTD on the website, and this reminds me that we should > version the document. I propose naming it something like > > spring-beans_1_0.dtd > > with the doctype definition being: > > <!DOCTYPE beans PUBLIC "-//SPRING//DTD BEAN 1.0//EN" > "http://www.springframework.org/dtd/spring-beans_1_0.dtd"> > > If everyone is in agreement, the only question is if we should keep = the > old one around (ie keep both versions) for the 1.0 release. I would > favour having only the new version, to avoid future confusion, = although > this would force everybody to update their definition documents. > > Regards, > Colin > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. > Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with > a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D1356&alloc_id=3D3438&op=3Dclick > _______________________________________________ > Springframework-developer mailing list > Spr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D1356&alloc_id=3D3438&op=3Dclick _______________________________________________ Springframework-developer mailing list Spr...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id438&op=3Dick _______________________________________________ Springframework-developer mailing list Spr...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer |
