Re: [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning

[Colin S. <col...@ex...>]

Personally I'd rather get a version number in there from the get-go, 
especially given that we've already had a few variants. I also have no 
problem with the possibility that some future release (e.g. 1.2) ships 
with a DTD which has an unchanged version number (e.g. 1.0). I consider 
it a DTD version, whos primary goal is to indicate a change from one DTD 
to another. Of course if something does change in the DTD so you change 
the DTD number for another version of the DTD, it makes sense to make 
the new version the same as the Spring version which introduces the change.

But the only thing I feel pretty strongly about is chaning the version 
in the name when something actually changes, so if other people just 
want to leave the name as-is for now, I have no real objections...

jürgen höller [werk3AT] wrote:

>I actually prefer the Hibernate style "spring-beans-1.0.dtd", as it seems more natural to me. After all, underscores look like a workaround for filesystems that can't handle dots in filenames.
>
>An interesting point is that it could well be that our bean definition format won't change for the next couple of Spring releases. All the new features that we plan to introduce are achievable with the current generic format. So if we recommend a versioned DTD, we have to assume that the "spring-beans-1.0.dtd" reference will be in use for Spring 1.1/1.2/etc too, arguably looking a bit odd.
>
>Hibernate is also a bit weird in that respect: "hibernate-mapping-2.0.dtd" was modified for 2.1 but still kept the 2.0 DTD version number... Noone complained, so I guess most people are fine with DTDs that aren't versioned (respectively not versioned in a fine-grained version).
>
>So a further option for us would be to stay with "spring-beans.dtd" for as long as there aren't any significant changes in the DTD. Of course, we would allow "spring-beans.dtd" as shortcut anyway, always defaulting to the most current DTD. The question is rather: What DTD name to we *recommend* to use - explicit version or not? Consequently, what DTD name will our sample apps use?
>
>Juergen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spr...@li...
>[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf
>Of Colin Sampaleanu
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:12 PM
>To: spr...@li...
>Subject: Re: Re [Springframework-developer] DTD versioning
>
>
>I am ok with either one. I picked the variant I did before because it is 
>what Sun uses, but if somebody likes the Hibernate-style better I am ok 
>with that.
>
>jürgen höller [werk3AT] wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Any opinions on the exact naming of the DTD file? I'd like to commit the change promptly :-)
>>
>>Juergen
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag von jürgen höller [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
>>>
>>>      
>>>