commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: Jelly and X++
Date Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:34:04 GMT



On Samedi, févr 8, 2003, at 19:39 Europe/Paris, Bryan Field-Elliot 
wrote:

> What dissatisfies me with the current crop of Java/XML data binding 
> tools (including Castor and JAXB), is the awkwardness with which you 
> have to deal with type extensions (<xsi:type>), where the original 
> code might know very well the base type, but not the extended type 
> it's being thrown at runtime. In this scenario, I'd like as 
> lightweight-way as possible to add business logic, without having to 
> rebuild the whole project from source, to deal with new types on an 
> ongoing basis.

I am not sure what (or how) you can expect binding business-logic 
objects in there, there's a large amount of ways, I think they would 
all more-or-less require writing your tag-library (to the exception of 
simple bean-building).
Indeed, jelly would not suffer from type-extensions: it can build all 
the objects you want using reflection and the tag base-classes make it 
very easy to build nested structures.

In exchange Schema constraints or any other validation system is simply 
left aside: this is the place where you would suffer from type-changes.

Paul

Mime
View raw message