Sandro Böhme wrote:
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
Regarding XML-schema:
I think we will need a definition for the XML file somehow or other. Be
it in writing form, a DTD or a
XML-schema. The schema is the more advanced than DTD. The user will have
a valid XML file as
early as possible. I think the writing form of explaining the definition
is much more work if it has the same
quality as the schema.
I think we need a XML-schema ballot in order to be able to close the
ballot about the persistence
technology of the mapping model.
++ Please vote if you think we need a XML schema for the XML file of the
mapping model. ++
Because of the above arguments I vote with +1 for XML schema.
Cheers,
Sandro
