On 8/17/05, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > > >how's JiBX's schema generation? > > > > > Decent, within the limits of both JiBX bindings and schema.
cool :) > But schema > is such a horrible, convoluted, mess that it's really difficult to try > to establish complete equivalences between it and general Java code. The > frameworks that come closest to full schema support, such as XMLBeans, > do so by building Java code that's specifically designed to match schema > constructs and even then fall short in some areas (substitution groups > in the XMLBeans case, for instance). yep but i'm not sure that support for the full schema infoset should actually be a goal for start-from-java. IMHO it's more important to be able to produce good mappings from java to a limited subset of schema concepts. > On the other hand, most forms of JiBX binding definitions have schema > equivalents, and most forms of schema constructs have JiBX equivalents. > I've already got a sort of active model of the JiBX binding definition > that provides the binding validation support (validates the actual > binding XML structure, makes sure that referenced classes and methods > are available, checks for type conflicts, etc.). I've been working on a > similar representation for schema so that I can improve the code that > goes code+binding -> schema, and also provide better > schema->code+binding support. My expectation is that if I can tie these > together I'll be able to support fast consistency checking that'll allow > highlighting of problems in IDEs and even suggested fixes. sounds good - robert
