Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 07:53 -0500, R J Scheuerle Jr wrote:
My concern is that the OMOWE is not like a normal OMElement. It will
not have a Namespace when it is constructed.
(To get the namespace/localpart, the implementation would need to
examine the underlying Object...which would cause a serialization (for
JAXB)...
which defeats the whole effort...)
I don't like that model .. why not say that any subclass of OMElement
*must* be an honest-to-goodness OMElement .. which means that it MUST
have a QName. So we can just have the constructor take that as input ..
that way the same object can be serialized as different QNames even.
That's the approach I took with OMSourcedElementImpl. One side benefit
of doing things this way is that it allows data bindings to use the
equivalent of a complexType for the underlying data source, with
different element names in different places.
- Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
