Ok so let's go for the proposal #3. At least, we are agree on the components organisations. That's maybe the more important. It should be nice if you can commit your code in a branch.
Tomorrow, I'm going to commit new stuffs and I would like to send a mail on the Jackrabbit mailing list in order to find more interested guys. Christophe 2005/8/22, Sandro Böhme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Christophe, > > in my email from the 6.8. I wrote: > "+1 for 3. I'm not sure if it is needed to check my prototype in. > But for me it's more about finding good arguments and consensus. > That would lead to a situation where everybody is willing to support the > way to go instead of > having one who is overruled and don't really understands why." > > And in a later email: > "Hello Christophe, > > if you are back from vacation and read my arguments and you are +1 for > Digester anyway, I'm > +0 for Digester for not slowing down the project. Basically because it > is only a matter of work > to keep the XML file specification in sync with the mapping class model > and it will not have > any impact to the user. > > But at the moment I don't see any arguments contra XML schema." > > regards, > > Sandro > > Christophe Lombart wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > >If I follow this thread, here is the result : > > > >proposal #3 : David, Oliver and myself. > >Sandro ? > > > >Christophe > > > >2005/8/11, Oliver Kiessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>>I afraid with my simple mind I did not completely understand why the > >>>user has to deal with the java classes generated > >>>by XML beans. Do you mean something like a GUI that creates the mapping > >>>xml file? > >>> > >>> > >>yes, a GUI is one example (also ant tasks, maven etc.). Instead of > >>having to write mappings by hand, one could generate them (by using > >>java classes). I think XML Beans makes it really easy to create > >>individual mappings. > >> > >>oliver > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
