I think there was some confusion over this, Chinthaka. I said in the
chat that I'd be implementing StAX support for JiBX, and that I'd try
JibxSoap support for XBIS - not that I'd add StAX support for XBIS. I'll
still probably add StAX support for XBIS at some point if Mark isn't
able to do it, but it's definitely not a priority for me at this time.
- Dennis
Eran Chinthaka wrote:
Hi Mark,
Today, in our weekly chat, Dennis expressed his willingness to
integrate XBIS binary stuff with Axis2. So I think u don't need to do
that. Anway, Denis is the one who wrote it so he knows in and out of
XBIS than anyone.
But at the same time Axis2 team wanted to have some other impl of
binary stuff in to Axis2. So you still have some more space to
contribute.
-- Chinthaka
Mark Pimentel wrote:
Hi everyone,
Chinthaka and I will likely move forward with trying to implement a
StAX parser for Dennis' XBIS format for Axis2, instead of sticking
with DFDL. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?
Thanks,
Mark
On 8/16/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 07:01 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 12:16 -0700, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
I'll just refer back to our earlier discussion on this topic:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&m=112131569306784&w=2 ;-)
- Dennis
+1 to using some XML Infoset binary serialization format rather than
DFDL.
I forgot to mention .. I would like to introduce a typed pull API
(extending StAX) into Axis2 (and implement it the obvious way). When
data binding is in place and if the data is being serialized, for
non-string data this can make a big difference. A common use case is
using Axis2 to deal with large numerical data sets .. if we go with a
binary typed stax approach, there's no intrinsic reason that should be
any slower or memory intensive than any other binary protocol approach.
After v1.0, of course ;-).
Sanjiva.
