> How does this sound to you? Sounds good. XGG also sounds good. There are some tradeoffs:
- with jaxb we don't have to write our own dtd(schema)->java converter. We'll also get free upgrades and Sun's support. - with jaxb we can do the java->xml store operation too, so we can eliminate velocity. To generate java code Velocity sounds reasonable (because of method bodies, etc), for xml not. Getting rid of velocity is good, it's better to write clean java code in java classes with clean loops and such to generate the xml imho, and it's not a println, it's a high level clean interface. - with xgg we can plug in our custom logic, with jaxb we can't, out of the box. I mean we talked about providing another xml file which we would feed to xgg and xgg would generate more complete java codes (validation logic for checking some stuff for example). Now jaxb generates it and it generates only the xml mapping code. Probably we'll have to generate a subclass for jaxb-generated classes from that extra xml file. Agree? - Sun is very slow on releasing jaxb final. I'm afraid they are changing some parts. Also I've heard that the java code generation step is slow for large number of files. But we're not changing any dtd/schema at all, so no worry here. I've used dtd->schema converters myself and they work just fine, no worry here too. Overall it's a positive change. Just generate the subclasses properly and I'm happy. Ara. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
