I think your (a) approach is great, and should definitely be a time saver. Probably the best that can be done right now is to use this approach but check for an exception thrown during the binding process. If that occurs perhaps you can pop up a dialog to tell the user to do a full build.

Longer term you may be able to make use of the validation information returned by the binding model, which gives the binding file name, line number, and column number for each problem found. That could probably be used to flag the problems right in the binding definition file. It'll take a little restructuring to get at this, though; right now it's buried down a couple levels deep within the binding compiler run (just because that was the easiest way to backport this from the 2.0 code).

 - Dennis

Dennis M. Sosnoski
Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services
Training and Consulting
http://www.sosnoski.com
Redmond, WA  425.885.7197



Ian Phillips wrote:

<caveat>Half finished thoughts ahead</caveat> but it's getting late so I'll send this out for comment and try to get some sleep now ;-)

I won't get chance to make my last few changes until the weekend now, but then I'll mail what I have to Norm and if he's happy with the changes that I've made then they can be checked into CVS.

WRT the "incremental" build approach: it seemed to be the best that could be accomplished. I guess that there are two broad approaches that can be taken at this time:

(a) Attempt to automatically keep the generated classes up to date with the minimum overhead. This is the approach that I took but if there may be problems with it then it may not be the best one at present.

(b) Accept that the user must manually trigger a JiBX compile but provide sufficient information to allow this to be done as needed. This would mean adding some kind of notification feature.

My thinking to date has been that (a) is the better approach and, in the long term (i.e. when there is a real incremental compilation option available) I still think that this is the case. In the short term however, I'm starting to think that maybe the better option is to alert the user to the current "freshness" of the bindings and allow them to trigger a JiBX compile manually as they see fit.

I'm going to be spending a few hours stuck on trains over the next day or so, so I'll try to read up on how much work a decorator based notification mechanism would be, then I can make a more informed choice as to the best approach to take with the plug-in when I go to it over the weekend.

Cheers,
Ian.



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
jibx-devs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-devs



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
jibx-devs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-devs

Reply via email to