ws-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Jordahl <tjord...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: How many XML Schema libraries at ASF is too many XML Schema Libraries?
Date Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:35:34 GMT
Ø  I don't know about you, but I'm left feeling that this conversation has ended up revealing
that the Xml Schema library isn't pointless.

+1 – we use it in a few places to read/write Schema and it is very useful.  Xerces does
not do what we want.

Tom Jordahl

From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM
To: j-dev@xerces.apache.org
Cc: Daniel Kulp; general@ws.apache.org; Lawrence Mandel
Subject: Re: How many XML Schema libraries at ASF is too many XML Schema Libraries?



FYI: Annotations aren't a good example. They are part of the component model and do get preserved
in Xerces.
Just out of perverse curiosity: an annotation on an attribute group: disappears, or pushes
down onto the resulting objects?


> A programmer working, say, with the CXF Aegis binding, can open a
> book on Xml Schema, and find an API that corresponds to the
> constructs he or she sees there. In the model you are describing,
> that person would need to become familiar with the underlying model.
> I'm not by any means describing this as a fatal flaw, just a consideration.
Different goals. Xerces' API represents the abstract model described for PSVI and a consumer
of that would expect this component view and should already be familiar with it given that
they are interested in processing PSVI.

In CXF, which I assume is not a bad model of Axis or even Glassfish/Metro, we have a number
of schema-ish things going on.

We have to examine schema, since some of the JAX-? standards tell us to condition behavior
on schema facts. I'm sure we could mine the PSVI-related information just as well; there sure
aren't any attribute groups at this level.

We have to create schema based on code introspection and on @nnotations. Here I have some
worries: it would not surprise me if somewhere in here was a requirement to create a W3C Xml
Schema element that is not part of the PSVI model. And, in any case, we'd need an API to create.

We support application programmers in specifying the schema for custom Java/XML type mappings.
They could probably handle PSVI.

I don't know about you, but I'm left feeling that this conversation has ended up revealing
that the Xml Schema library isn't pointless.

Mime
View raw message