10:31 a.m.
Hi,
yes, versioning via an XML namespace would also be a possible approach.
Independent from the chosen approach, my question more was when we should
create a new distinguishable schema version:
a) with the next schema change we make (so this would be BV 1.1)
b) with the next incompatible schema change we make (there is none so far
in BV 1.1, so this might be a future revision)
I'm leaning towards b), as I don't think there is a real advantage of
creating a new schema version (by means of a version attribute or a
namespace) in case of compatible changes and it spares BV implementors from
having to handle several schema versions at the same time.
In any case I think we have to provide the new schema (also if the change
is backwards-compatible) under a new name (“
validation-configuration-1.1.xsd“), so users have the old and new version
available, e.g. for content assist in their IDE.
--Gunnar
2012/6/10 Sebastian Thomschke <sebastian.thomschke(a)web.de>:
How about using a versioned namespace, e.g. like in maven?
<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="
http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0
http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd">
Interesting readings:
http://www.xfront.com/Versioning.pdf
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipnamsp/index.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2014237/what-are-the-best-practices-fo...
Seb
On 10.06.2012 18:16, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd be interested in your opinion on BVAL-295 [1].
>
> The background is that for BV 1.1 there will be some additions to the
> BV XML descriptors and thus the corresponding XSD files (e.g. new
> element "parameter-name-provider" in validation.xml).
>
> While implementing method validation within the RI, Hardy and I asked
> ourselves whether there should be an explicit version attribute in the
> descriptor root element (similar e.g. to JPA's persistence.xml):
>
> <validation-config
> xmlns="http://jboss.org/xml/ns/javax/validation/configuration"
> xmlns:xsi="..."
> xsi:schemaLocation="..."
> version="1.1">
> ...
> </validation-config>
>
> This attribute would have a fixed value defined in the schema, which
> would allow to unambiguously identify the BV version for which an XML
> descriptor was written.
>
> As long as all schema changes are backwards compatible (meaning any
> files written against the 1.0 schemas are also valid against the new
> schemas), there is not really the need for such a version attribute,
> as always the new schema files could be used for validation. Things
> look different, though, in case of incompatible changes. Then the
> schema to validate against could be determined using the version
> attribute.
>
> Personally I feel we should add such an attribute once we really have
> an incompatible change (maybe in a future BV revision), but maybe
> there are other opinions?
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-295
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
12:12 p.m.
New subject: Changes in BV XML schemas
On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
yes, versioning via an XML namespace would also be a possible
approach.
As with everything xml/xsd related it seems to be a real jungle out there.
If we do something about versioning I think I still favor the explicit version attribute
though.
Independent from the chosen approach, my question more was when we
should create a new distinguishable schema version:
a) with the next schema change we make (so this would be BV 1.1)
b) with the next incompatible schema change we make (there is none so far in BV 1.1, so
this might be a future revision)
Given that the changes we are introducing for BV 1.1 are backwards compatible I don't
see a big need to act right now. I think we can defer
the introduction of a version attribute until there is non compatible change or a new
major BV version (e.g. 2.0)
In any case I think we have to provide the new schema (also if the
change is backwards-compatible) under a new name (“ validation-configuration-1.1.xsd“), so
users have the old and new version available, e.g. for content assist in their IDE.
+1
--Hardy
4330
days inactive
4330
days old
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Gunnar Morling -
Hardy Ferentschik