>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Jeremy Boynes wrote: >>I suggest the following plan: >> >>* We define POJOs that represent the data objects but which are not >>bound to XML >> or to any usage model (e.g. DConfig). This provides us with an object >>model >> for the data everyone can use no matter which framework we end up >>using.
+1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Afterward, we should also agree on how XPath navigation should beThis is a good issue to bring up - some code can be shielded from xml specifics, but in some cases dealing with objects rather than a document model is inconvenient (eg need to do xpath expressions). So, it may not be appropriate for all code to use the POJOs. BTW: does anybody have any experience with the JXPath from commons that Aaron refers to? Is it fast?
done. Right now the JSR-88 code uses JDom, but it seems kind of wasteful
to load the same document twice (once into objects, once into JDom). Perhaps we should just agree to implement a limited XPath handler (it
could operate on our POJOs if the naming and accessors are consistent), or
to use the one in commons. But I guess I'm getting ahead of myself.
Jan
