Hi, the namespaces, filenames and URLs need to be informative and "scale" in the future. 1) It needs to say windup, so people know what namespace they are dealing with. 2) Same goes for the filename - when people download it. Therefore, rule-schema-1.0.xsd is not good IMO. 3) I suggest to align the XSD version with the Windup core version, since the XSD describes what the core accepts. "1.0" is not fortunate, as people will confuse it with legacy Windup. The version string should be the same as Windup version, so we can automate things. Different formats are source of human errors. 4) It doesn't need to say "schema" - XSD is saying that. 5) It's not rule - it's a ruleset. Could be misleading. I suggest the URL for the current XSD to be: http://windup.jboss.org/schema/windup-ruleset-2.3.0.Final.xsd And the namespace: Either the same, http://windup.jboss.org/schema/windup-ruleset-2.3.0.Final.xsd or, http://windup.jboss.org/ns/ruleset/2.3.0.Final , and that would be handled by the site (e.g., redirect to docs).

Sounds good? Ondra _______________________________________________ windup-dev mailing list windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev

> I am not really sure if it is good idea to have version in namespace

>> 3) I suggest to align the XSD version with the Windup core version, >> since the XSD describes what the core accepts. >> "1.0" is not fortunate, as people will confuse it with legacy Windup. >> The version string should be the same as Windup version, so we can >> automate things. Different formats are source of human errors. I went with _1_0.xsd to follow the patterns JBoss uses. If you look in http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/, you'll see none of the JBoss related schemas use the JBoss EAP release number. For example: http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-as-mail_1_1.xsd http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-as-logging_2_0.xsd http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-deployment-structure-1_2.xsd http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-ejb-client_1_2.xsd Will the schema change with every release of Windup? I would expect it to be more stable than that. Won't it be a maintenance nightmare to update the rules schema location in the XML for the rules for every release?

We agreed the schema name will be: windup-jboss-2.3.0.Final.xsd On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi Sande, Marek, > > I know that all are used to -X_Y, but IMO it's a wrong tradition, let me > explain why. > > The rule schema rules location will change with every change of the > schema. The older schema needs to stay where it is. The old rules will > refer to that schema. We might change our rules, but those rules which > are outside our reach will have to refer to a valid schema URL. > > I remember that in QE dept, these a-b_c-D-e_F.G_h schemas were a source > of bugs surprisingly often. Even your examples are inconsistent: > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-as-logging_2_0.xsd > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-deployment-structure-1_2.xsd > > > Nobody really can tell why there's a - or _ or . . > If we simply use the same version string and only use '-' before it, > it's all clear. > And, as I said - *the schema only expresses the constraint that is > effectively inside of the released implementation*. So it's really > *directly related to the particular release*. > > The fact that we would use 2.3.0.Final for a XSD url or namespace > doesn't imply or suggest that it has to change for every release. The > string is in 2 places so far, in general: > 1) The Windup source, where it should be a single constant in > config-xml, referenced form it's dependees. > 2) The XML rules, where it can simply stay the same until next review of > the rule. > > Therefore I don't think it would create any maintainance that would not > be needed if we use arbitrary version string scheme. > > The only reason I can see to keep 1_1 is to align with what someone > coined up 10 years ago, which for me equals to sticking to a wrong > solution. YMMV :) > > >> I am not really sure if it is good idea to have version in namespace > Is there some other way for versioning the schema and the rules? > > > On 26.5.2015 20:13, Sande Gilda wrote: > >>> 3) I suggest to align the XSD version with the Windup core version, > >>> since the XSD describes what the core accepts. > >>> "1.0" is not fortunate, as people will confuse it with legacy > Windup. > >>> The version string should be the same as Windup version, so we > can > >>> automate things. Different formats are source of human errors. > > I went with _1_0.xsd to follow the patterns JBoss uses. If you look in > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/, you'll see none of the JBoss > > related schemas use the JBoss EAP release number. For example: > > > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-as-mail_1_1.xsd > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-as-logging_2_0.xsd > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-deployment-structure-1_2.xsd > > http://www.jboss.org/schema/jbossas/jboss-ejb-client_1_2.xsd > > > > Will the schema change with every release of Windup? I would expect it > > to be more stable than that. > > > > Won't it be a maintenance nightmare to update the rules schema location > > in the XML for the rules for every release? > > _______________________________________________ > windup-dev mailing list > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev > -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better."