On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Cabrera, Alan wrote:
> Since we're talking about XML, have we decided on the issue of namespace
> targets? Am I the only one who thinks that modifying Sun's elements and
> putting them back into Sun's namespace is a bad idea? If I am, then why is
> this a non-issue?
I
Title: Message
Heh,
heh. Looks like the corporate mail server has rendered an
opinion...
-Original Message-From: Cabrera, Alan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:36
PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject:
[spam] namespace
targets
Since we're ta
Title: Message
Since
we're talking about XML, have we decided on the issue of namespace
targets? Am I the only one who thinks that modifying Sun's elements
and putting them back into Sun's namespace is a bad idea? If I am, then
why is this a non-issue?
Regards,
Alan
How about XGen from CommerceOne for a XML-Java Binding tool?
http://www.commerceone.com/developers/docsoapxdk/xgen.html
There's even a comparison already done for you among XGen, Castor, Sun's JAXB RI, and Breeze:
http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/09/03/binding.html
Cheers,
~Andy
On Wed, 2003-10
Bruce Snyder wrote:
Have we considered the use of JiBx (http://jibx.sourceforge.net/)? I'm
seeing small reservations from everyone who looks at XMLBeans. Why not
consider other tools that are very well suited to the job?
That's then the first cadidate or the second assuming XMLBeans was the
first.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Mulder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> XMLBeans is now in Apache, and I've gotten the Apache
> version to
> generate, read, and write POJOs for the DDs. The JAR I built
> from the
> Apache source is about the same size as Castor, which is no
I'm in.
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 18:55, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Not yet to my knowledge - please jump in.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luis Avila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:36 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Axis & geroni
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Mulder said:
AM>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
AM>> Does it mean that we're considering it as a tool to handle our XML files
AM>> ? I thought we'd agreed that the files were to be parsed by our own
AM>> code. Would it be changed in the future? When? I
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I have the highest hopes for XMLBeans out of all of the options,
which is why I am pursuing it now. But I'm still not totally convinced
that it can be made to work the way we want.
Hi,
Pursuing it even further, let's write down our expectations of what the
tool ought to do
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Does it mean that we're considering it as a tool to handle our XML files
> ? I thought we'd agreed that the files were to be parsed by our own
> code. Would it be changed in the future? When? I doubt if we keep
> writing the code ourselves nobody will ev
Aaron Mulder wrote:
...
Bottom line, everything seems to be moving in the right direction,
but there are still some wrinkles left.
Hi Aaron,
Does it mean that we're considering it as a tool to handle our XML files
? I thought we'd agreed that the files were to be parsed by our own
code. Would it
XMLBeans is now in Apache, and I've gotten the Apache version to
generate, read, and write POJOs for the DDs. The JAR I built from the
Apache source is about the same size as Castor, which is not great, but
1/2 of the pre-Apache version.
On the down side, it's very slow to read
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:16:44 +1000, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Unfortunately, I've got some JSP compile issues (this is a well-know
issue, yet I would like to know why).
The issue is that jasper needs a real classpath to compile against and
cannot use a stack of classloaders.
[...]
This is in Jetty-4.2.1
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:32:46 -0400 (EDT), Aaron Mulder wrote:
Just to kind of recap where we are (I think):
- I favor a central deployer which delegates only where necessary
- Jan favors separate deployers per module, with a common base class
- We seem to be more or less in agreement on the API,
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: Gianny DAMOUR (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 6:54 AM
Changes:
Attachment changed to RIGHT-J2eePlanner.jar
-
For a full history of the
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: Gianny DAMOUR (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 6:44 AM
Changes:
Attachment changed to J2eePlanner.jar
-
For a full history of the issue
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: Gianny DAMOUR (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 6:44 AM
Changes:
Attachment changed to J2eePlanner.txt
-
For a full history of the issue
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=GERONIMO-102
Here is an overview of the issue:
---
Hello Greg,
Wednesday, October 8, 2003, 1:03:16 PM, you wrote:
GW> I wrote up a little bit about this initially on the wiki :
GW>http://wiki.codehaus.org/geronimo/Architecture/WebContainer
This is good stuff.
The diagram at http://wiki.codehaus.org/geronimo/Architecture/Deployment
seems to
Bruce Snyder wrote:
GW>The webcontainer AND ALL ITS components are being added as first class
GW>geronimo services. Thus connecters, webapps, request logs (and eventually
GW>session managers, realms etc.) are all geronimo services with standard
GW>geronimo lifecycles, management and configuration
Aaron Mulder wrote:
P.S. What good is all this flexibility when we know we'll have exactly
EARs, WARs, EJB JARs, and RARs, and we need to specifically arrange
ClassLoaders across them, and there are hardcoded constants for those
module types in the J2EE 1.4 API? It's not like you could/would just
21 matches
Mail list logo
