It might be worth noting that the original code was written at IBM a long time ago and then contributed to the ASF :-) How it relates historically to the Eclipse code I cannot say.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Tom Jordahl <[email protected]> wrote: > Ø I don't know about you, but I'm left feeling that this conversation > has ended up revealing that the Xml Schema library isn't pointless. > > > > +1 – we use it in a few places to read/write Schema and it is very useful. > Xerces does not do what we want. > > > > Tom Jordahl > > > > *From:* Benson Margulies [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:35 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Daniel Kulp; [email protected]; Lawrence Mandel > *Subject:* Re: How many XML Schema libraries at ASF is too many XML Schema > Libraries? > > > > > > > FYI: Annotations aren't a good example. They are part of the component > model and do get preserved in Xerces. > > Just out of perverse curiosity: an annotation on an attribute group: > disappears, or pushes down onto the resulting objects? > > > > > A programmer working, say, with the CXF Aegis binding, can open a > > book on Xml Schema, and find an API that corresponds to the > > constructs he or she sees there. In the model you are describing, > > that person would need to become familiar with the underlying model. > > I'm not by any means describing this as a fatal flaw, just a > consideration. > > Different goals. Xerces' API represents the abstract model described for > PSVI and a consumer of that would expect this component view and should > already be familiar with it given that they are interested in processing > PSVI. > > > In CXF, which I assume is not a bad model of Axis or even Glassfish/Metro, > we have a number of schema-ish things going on. > > We have to examine schema, since some of the JAX-? standards tell us to > condition behavior on schema facts. I'm sure we could mine the PSVI-related > information just as well; there sure aren't any attribute groups at this > level. > > We have to create schema based on code introspection and on @nnotations. > Here I have some worries: it would not surprise me if somewhere in here was > a requirement to create a W3C Xml Schema element that is not part of the > PSVI model. And, in any case, we'd need an API to create. > > We support application programmers in specifying the schema for custom > Java/XML type mappings. They could probably handle PSVI. > > I don't know about you, but I'm left feeling that this conversation has > ended up revealing that the Xml Schema library isn't pointless. > > >
