xml-xmlbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Calahan <p...@bea.com>
Subject Re: Start-with-java annotations
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:53:32 GMT
Hi Robert.  Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

At 10:28 PM 11/18/2003 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:

>FWIW a couple of obesrvations (IMHO, of course):
>1. castor is very widely used but not as widely liked by developers as 
>it's usage suggests. (i think that it

Sure, but doesn't that beg the question?  If Castor has a large audience 
held captive only by the absence of a better alternative, wouldn't it 
behoove xmlbeans to strive to be (among other things) exactly such an 

>  loses a lot from being a general mapping tool rather than a specialist 
> xml one.)

Is Castor really general-purpose?  I've only used Castor a little bit 
myself, but AFICT, it seems to me to have an XML-focused piece, and a 
JDO-focused piece, and some limited integration between the two.  The XML 
piece does seem to be pretty specialized for XML.

>3. developers are starting to care more about the schemas than they used to.

Sure, definitely.

>2. it's not really object serialization but round trip mapping that 
>developers want. in fact, i think that attempting object serialization is 
>positively harmful.
>maybe point 2 needs a little expansion: serialization must be essentially 
>lose-less in a java sense. i'd say that object round tripping means being 
>able to go from a symantically meaningful object graph to an (easily) 
>human readable (and symantically meaningful) xml document and then back to 
>an object graph which is equivalent to the original.

I'm a little confused about the distinction you are drawing between 
round-tripping and serialization.  'How is loss-less in the java sense' 
different from getting back 'an object which is equivalent to the original?'


View raw message