Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> But you're here talking about versioning as an after-thought in order > to fix legacy problems. If the versioning model was in place from the > get go, perhaps this would have worked perfectly. I myself use a > similar scheme, and it works for rather large and complex systems that > use XML as a pipeline language. Yes, if everyone had perfect foreknowledge, we would not have any problems. And yes, if someone else has a problem we don't have, it is not a real problem. But I agree that having a worked out versioning system where the subset/superset relationship between minor and major versions was made explicit and could be coded for is good advice for old and new schemas. But just imagine, if we dare, a world which where people didn't know everything in advance, where there was risk from failure of the technology and where it was the job of technology to try to cope with this! The best made plans, etc. In such a world, cruise ships would have life rafts, cars would have air bags, and supermarkets would double-bag heavy items in case they split. Of course, this is such a mad vision it is unrecognizeable. XML is Titanic! Sorry for the sarcasm, it is probably not constructive. I feel like Professor Claven explaining the theoretical "3rd" dimension to the Simpsons. When there is a breaking change to a vocabulary (and schemas), and a namespace change is forced, how do we minimize the impact and make it as undisruptive as possible to running and deployed systems? Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
