Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-xmlbeans-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 54675 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 19:22:45 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 19:22:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 1260 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2004 19:22:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-xmlbeans-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 1199 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2004 19:22:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xmlbeans-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: xmlbeans-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list xmlbeans-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 1173 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 19:22:35 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: JAXB vs JAX-RPC conventions for Schema name to Java name Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:22:37 -0800 Message-ID: <4B2B4C417991364996F035E1EE39E2E124A078@uskiex01.amer.bea.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: JAXB vs JAX-RPC conventions for Schema name to Java name Thread-Index: AcQFQlTX1OagtHs8RgGGIJGSWKABAAAABupA From: "Radu Preotiuc-Pietro" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2004 19:22:38.0252 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7C7C6C0:01C40542] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N My bad, the lossy model is definitely not a jaxb implementation. I meant = it follows JAX-RPC, not jaxb. Radu -----Original Message----- From: Scott Ziegler=20 Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:20 AM To: xmlbeans-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: JAXB vs JAX-RPC conventions for Schema name to Java name I think we should use the more sensible JAXB rules as default, but provide an option for a strict interpretation of JAX-RPC's naming rules. Also I just want to clarify that the lossy model is not a JAXB impl but rather something similiar in philosophy. --Scott On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 15:55, Radu Preotiuc-Pietro wrote: > Hi all, > I was reviewing the "Mapping of XML Names" section of both these specs = and noticed that they are contradictory and moreover JAX-RPC seems to be = broken in this area, since the examples of conversion from XML Name to = Java Name that they give do not match the conversion rules. > In particular, the handling of class or method names which contain (in = XML) the '_' character is different. > XMLBeans v1 uses the JAXB conventions. Two questions arise: > 1. Should XMLBeans v2 "lossy" model (which implements jaxb) and = "non-lossy" model (similar to XmlBeans v1) share the same naming = conversion rules? > 2. If yes, should these rules be the JAXB rules (which make more = sense) or the JAX-RPC rules? >=20 > Thanks, > Radu >=20 > - = --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-help@xml.apache.org > Apache XMLBeans Project -- URL: http://xml.apache.org/xmlbeans/ >=20 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-help@xml.apache.org Apache XMLBeans Project -- URL: http://xml.apache.org/xmlbeans/ - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: xmlbeans-dev-help@xml.apache.org Apache XMLBeans Project -- URL: http://xml.apache.org/xmlbeans/