Hi, Elegance apart - how often is the OM representation of a schema needs to become a XML schema representation ? Is this a woden scenario ?
BTW after numerous encounters I also tend to think that DOM is quite convenient too (not to offend OM by any means. OM was designed with perf in mind and DOM was with accuracy in mind). It is 'accurate' and after a text to DOM conversion you have access to every information item that was there in text format so atleast that is 'pretty convenient' for me. AFAIK XMLSchema strictly depends on the DOM api and swithcing the implementation is trivial :) Ajith On 7/23/06, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Glen Daniels wrote: > I'm not worried about the DOM dependency either. Schema processing is > typically (not always, but usually) going to be a design time thing > where squeaking every bit of performance out isn't as important. Its not about performance I'm talking here. Think of a situation where you have the whole WSDL in an OM tree. Do you want to get the schema element from it, build DOM and pump it to XmlSchema. I hope you won't say yes, if you care at least a lil bit about elegance. This is the exact thing Oshani is doing in her effort in integrating StAX support for Woden. > I *really* don't want to get into another whole "Yet Another XML Factory > Abstraction" thing unless we truly need it. And DOM is a pretty > convenient Since when you started to say DOM has a convenient API? I for one hates it. I can remember you were hating DOM apis a lot, during the first Axis2 f2f and was very much impressed with JDom API. > (and standard, as Ajith points out) API for walking around an > XML tree with lots of cross-references. Anyway, I'm ok to go ahead with DOOM as Sanjiva suggested. -- Chinthaka
-- Ajith Ranabahu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
