Definitely don't think we need two ways. If most of the XML config is going to be simple 1 attribute type stuff then StAX seems much simpler. If a reasonable amount of config XML is more complicated then maybe we need a data binding.
I guess when trying to decide between these two approaches then given that part of the Tuscany project is implementing this SDO data binding technology we should probably err on the SDO choice...especially as the SDO guys say they'll fix some of the problems that are making it harder. ...ant On 3/23/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ant, > > I'm having trouble figuring out where you are coming down on this - > maybe I'm just brain-dead this morning. You mention at the beginning > that you are starting to be persuaded by the SDO approach but then > you give the Axis example at the end which seems to say either "keep > things simple" (i.e. StAX) or adopt a mixed approach and use StAX and > SDO where appropriate. Am I reading this right? > > FWIW, I'd prefer to stick with one approach whatever it is, since > multiple ones brings complexity and more maintenance in an area we > probably don't need it (it's just configuration). > > Jim > > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:13 AM, ant elder wrote: > > > On 3/23/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <snip/> > > > > As the binding itself uses JAXB2 (though it may change in > > > >> the future), I have to include all eclipse dependencies and SDO > >> stuff, > >> just to load the system configuration files :( > >> > > > > > > From the discussion I'm starting to be persuaded by some of the > > arguments > > for the SDO approach, but this EMF dependency seems a draw back. If > > we're > > going to support alternate data bindings for the WS binding its not > > great to > > still be dragging in EMF to run the thing. And I'd guess it would > > be much > > easier to sell SDO to say the Axis2 guys to use instead of XmlBeans > > if there > > was a pure Java SDO impl. Any Axis2 guys listening who'd comment on > > this? > > > > As another comparison look at Axis2, they have their own very > > simple Axis > > Data Binding (ADB) which supports simple XSDs, and they use > > XmlBeans for all > > the complicated stuff. They don't use XmlBeans all the time because > > lots of > > things don't need the complexity a full blown data binding brings. > > And as > > Guillaume points out, the SCA binding schema are usually pretty > > simple. > > > > ...ant > > > >
