Hay Richard, I have looked at you project and it shows some nice ideas, specifically the option of using properties file to define the mapping in addition to the annotations. If I may, I think that a little more examples in the site will help a lot.
As for J2XB compared to X2JB - except for the similar name and the the fact that both libraries are about XML binding, they are quite different and aim to solve different problems. J2XB is about a very flexible binding in terms of structure transformations and in terms of XML Schema generation. To my knowledge, J2XB is the most advanced library today in terms of XML Schema features. It aims to support most, if not all, of the different XML Schema validations and constraints when generating the XML Schema. Today it supports facets, substitution groups and more. You are most welcome to take ideas from J2XB to incorporate into X2JB or even join the project. Cheers, Yoav On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Opalka <[email protected]> wrote: > On first sight I thought it's about my free time project. > Then I noticed the diff ;) > > http://j2xb.sourceforge.net/ > vs. > http://x2jb.sourceforge.net/ > > Richard > > > On 10/12/2009 07:02 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Mon October 12 2009 9:12:15 am Yoav Abrahami wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I have been seeing the XFire and CXF projects mature of the last few >>> years >>> and really like the approach. Great work guys. >>> >>> J2XB is an open source for Data Binding with some novel ideas. >>> I have been running for some time trying to prove a point - that you can >>> define a complete service interface in Java using only Java code and >>> annotations. >>> >> >> JAXB + JAX-WS already allows this. :-) We've been trying to prove the >> same >> point for quite some time. :-) >> >> >> A Service interface includes the WSDL generation including XML Schema >>> generation with full facets supports, inheritance, customized structure >>> mapping, etc. >>> >> >> Again, JAXB + JAX-WS, although we can also do so with Aegis. >> >> In addition, it has novel support for model classes which do not have >>> default constructors and require the use of complex constructors or >>> factories. >>> >> >> Now that starts getting interesting. >> >> >>> The J2XB site is at http://j2xb.sourceforge.net/ >>> >>> I am currently thinking about returning to the J2XB project to add >>> additional novel ideas for adding comments and documentation to the >>> generated WSDL and for complete interfaces inheritance support, as well >>> as >>> thoughts about enabling a second mapping configuration alternative as XML >>> instead of annotations. >>> >>> >>> I am basically asking you guys two questions >>> 1. Is there an interest in integrating J2XB 1.1 as it is now with Apache >>> CFX? >>> >> >> Well, I haven't seen any demand for it from CXF users specifically, but it >> may >> be valuable, possibly for J2XB users. Having never followed J2XB at all, >> I'm >> not sure how valuable it would be to them. >> >> The main issue, looking at the javadoc API's, is that it seems to be >> fairly >> "file based" and not really stream based, and definitely preferrable Stax >> based. That definitely will make it MUCH harder to integrate into CXF. >> CXF pretty much uses Stax (XMLStreamWriter/XMLStreamReader) things for >> pretty >> much all interaction with the databinding layer. If the databinding >> supports >> that, it's usually not hard to integrate into CXF. >> >> You could look at the XMLBeans databinding as an example: >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf//cxf/trunk/rt/databinding/xmlbeans/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/xmlbeans/ >> or the SDO databinging: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf//cxf/trunk/rt/databinding/sdo/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/sdo >> >> Particularly the DataWriterImpls and DataReaderImpls. >> >> >> Likewise, for generating the Schemas to stick in the generated wsdl, we >> would >> need to generate into either: >> 1) DOMs >> 2) Stax (which we would then go to DOM) >> 3) org.apache XmlSchema schema objects (eventually, the DOM's from above >> go >> into this) >> >> >> 2. Is there an interest in continuing the work of the J2XB project either >>> as joining it or as taking the ideas (including the ones I am thinking >>> of >>> for J2XB 2.0) to existing frameworks in CFX? >>> >> >> Having never heard of J2XB before, I really have no idea. :-) >> >> >> > -- > Richard Opalka > JBoss Software Engineer > > Mail: [email protected] > Mobile: +420731186942 >
