agreed +1
Rich Scheuerle
Senior Developer
IBM WebSphere Web Services Engine & Tooling
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
![Inactive hide details for Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>](gif5GvdYJK5CH.gif){kind=small}
Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/17/2006 08:18 PM
|
|
+1 .. as long as OMWE is a real element with a QName and all I'm
happy :).
Sanjiva.
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 08:40 -0500, R J Scheuerle Jr wrote:
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> Thanks for the comment.
>
> Yes, there are different cases here.
>
> Case 1) The underlying Object provides the QName.
>
> Case 2) The underlying Object does not provide the QName, The QName
> must be provided separately.
>
> Case 3) The underlying Object provides the QName, but it can be
> overriden.
>
> I agree that these cases need to be considered by the implementation
> classes of the OMObjectWrapper.
>
> ------------------
> This forces an additional methods onto the proposed OMOW.
>
> public interface OMObjectWrapper(){
>
> public XMLStreamReader getPullParser();
>
> public void writeYourSelf(XMLStreamWriter);
>
> /**
> * @return QName of the element. The QName is used to set the
> OMNamespace when the OMOWE is constructed.
> */
> public QName getQName();
>
> }
> ------------------
>
> public class OMObjectWrappingElement extends OMElement{
>
> public OMObjectWrappingElement(OMObjectWrapper wrapper){
> ...construct OMNamespace using wrapper.getQName()....
> }
>
> public void serializeWithConsume(XMLStreamWriter writer){
> wrapper.writeYourSelf(writer)
> }
>
> }
>
> ----------------
>
> Sanjiva, does this mesh with your ideas.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Rich Scheuerle
>
> Inactive hide details for Sanjiva Weerawarana
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 06/17/2006 08:18 AM
> Please respond to
> [email protected]
>
>
> To
>
> [email protected]
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re:
> [Proposal][Axis2][Axiom] Adding writable capability to OM elementse
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
