+1 only for Digester. I think XML Schema is not necessary for a confi file. it should quite stable. I see only new elements used new features.
Christophe 2005/8/1, Sandro Böhme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Christophe Lombart wrote: > > >>+1 for Digester if you don't need XML Schema support, +1 for XMLBeans > >>if we need it > >> > >> > >> > >+1 > > > > > > > Do you vote +1 for both, Digester and XML Beans also dependent on the > Schema support? > > What do you both think about the exchangability of the library? > > >>I think we don't necessarily need XML Schema support because I believe > >> the mapping config xml file will not change very often (maybe during > >> development...) > > >Same opinion > I'm not sure if the mapping specification is really stable or if it will > get stable quite fast. > > Pro XML-schema: > o Easier to keep the allowed XML structure in sync with the mapping model. > o The user can validate their XML file with the XML schema and we don't need > very much error handling in the application. I assume that XML schema can > validate more than Digester can because the schema knows the types, structure > and cardinality <se?lp=ende&p=/Mn4k.&search=cardinality>. But I don't know > very much about digester, so I could be > wrong. > > Regards, > > Sandro > >
