incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sandro Böhme <>
Subject Re: [jcr-mapping] persistence of the mapping model
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:24:33 GMT
Sandro Böhme wrote:

> Christophe Lombart wrote:
>>> +1 for Digester if you don't need XML Schema support, +1 for XMLBeans
>>> if we need it
>> +1
> Do you vote +1 for both, Digester and XML Beans also dependent on the 
> Schema support?
> What do you both think about the exchangability of the library?
>>> I think we don't necessarily need XML Schema support because I believe
>>> the mapping config xml file will not change very often (maybe during
>>> development...)
>> Same opinion 
> I'm not sure if the mapping specification is really stable or if it will
> get stable quite fast.
> Pro XML-schema:
> o Easier to keep the allowed XML structure in sync with the mapping 
> model.
> o The user can validate their XML file with the XML schema and we 
> don't need
> very much error handling in the application. I assume that XML schema 
> can validate more than Digester can because the schema knows the 
> types, structure and cardinality 
> <se?lp=ende&p=/Mn4k.&search=cardinality>. But I don't know very much 
> about digester, so I could be wrong.
> Regards,
> Sandro
Regarding XML-schema:
I think we will need a definition for the XML file somehow or other. Be 
it in writing form, a DTD or a
XML-schema. The schema is the more advanced than DTD. The user will have 
a valid XML file as
early as possible. I think the writing form of explaining the definition 
is much more work if it has the same
quality as the schema.

I think we need a XML-schema ballot in order to be able to close the 
ballot about the persistence
technology of the mapping model.

++ Please vote if you think we need a XML schema for the XML file of the 
mapping model. ++

Because of the above arguments I vote with +1 for XML schema.



View raw message