Seems this is becoming to an un-necessary argument, even after the solution being agreed.
Ajith Ranabahu wrote: > Hi, > Elegance apart - how often is the OM representation of a schema needs > to become a XML schema representation ? Is this a woden scenario ? Yes, it is. Wasn't it obvious from the first email itself? OM being an fully XML infoset compliant XML object model, don't you expect some one to have schema as an OMElement? Anyway, I'd like to conclude this argument as we have a solution with DOOM. > > 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. Are you saying OM is not giving access to *every* information item as in DOM? And OM is not accurate? If yes, since you are also an OM expert please fix it :). OM, from the first day, designed to be convenient for the developer or the user. If there are inconveniences in OM, please bring them up. OM was there for more than 2 years. Why are these "blames" all of a sudden? For me, OM api is far more convenient than the cumbersome DOM api. > > AFAIK XMLSchema strictly depends on the DOM api What is the base to this argument? Do you wanna create another xml-security model which is very in-flexible because its highly dependent on DOM apis. IIUC, Xmlschema depends on DOM when it tries to build the schema model using the SchemaBuilder. This builder builds the schema model, looking at the DOM model. But if there is any attempt to make XmlSchema dependent on DOM, inside its model, other than in the above scenario, expect a -1 from me :). -- Chinthaka
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
