Splitting out the schema and wsdl files caused a problem that we should
have forseen; since the files are now separate artifacts they can change
independently of one another. For example, suppose we had
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.odt that included wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl to
make wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf. Now we make some changes to
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.odt and are preparing to publish it as
wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.pdf. The WSDL file hasn't changed so do we include
wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl or do we create a
wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-11.wsdl (which is exactly the same as the previous
version) or what? It seems counter-intuitive to me to create a new
version of an artifact that is exactly the same as the previous version
solely for the purpose of trackig another artifact.
I was thinking that, since schema and WSDL file changes are rare, we
should just let Kavi take care of all the versions of
wsrm*-1.1-*-200510.* and always include "the latest version" when we
generate PDF's for public consumption.
- g
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:14 AM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Doug Davis;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
>
> > Does anybody feel that we should name the files something along the
> > lines:
> > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wdXX.xsd.
>
> As per the resolution of issue i074 [1], the TC accepted to
> name the final wsdl and xsd files as wsrm-1.1.wsdl and
> wsrm-1.1.xsd respectively.
> I understand that this is not helpful for naming the wsdl and
> xsd files for WDs and CDs. How about including the
> <status>-<revision> just before the file extension? For
> example, the CD II wsdl file would be named - wsrm-1.1-cd-02.wsdl
>
>
> [1]
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> s.xml#i074
>
