Hi Niraj, I don't think their was a suggestion to write another product.. but to use/modify one to give the level of validation necessary.
Apparently, Castor can automatically create beans with a validate() method from Schema Now. Problem is that validate method just returns true/false without details that can be translated into field errors to present to the user... if you could grab appropriate exceptions and retranslate them into a meaningful error page it would help. Schemas give you better validation than DTDs.. so you can describe and validate type, etc. Thus much of the needed info should be there and it would be a help to automate some of the validation process. I'm all for ebXML but it's still quite immature. Also the spec. is so big it might take some time for real products to make real inroads. Like most standards processes others come out with perfectly good products before the spec gets around to be written.. eg. JAXB is newer than other great technologies.. remember DXML? Castor. Struts' Digestor. Jon Niraj Juneja wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for the reply, > > I have not worked with Castor so I cannot comment on that(although I did get > an email from castor to evaluate their product). > > As far as JAXB goes. Right now it is in Early Access and I think it is due > its first relase now. In its Early access release it supports only DTD's but > one of the goals of the specification is to support XML Schema. So I guess > the first release should support XML Schema. > > On Validation : I believe the validation it does is whatever validation you > can describe in your schema. So if you say that your Element can contains > boolean so the Validation will check for stuff like that. But I am not sure > if by validations you mean stuff like the "Date should be in between X and Y > days". I don't think JAXB can do validations like this... > > Yes I did read about the Form Beans / and the XML schema thread. In my > opinion the struts developers should concentrate on making Form beans JAXB > compliant rather than writing one more XML/object product. > > Thanks > > Niraj > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 6:03 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Form beans and JAXB........ > > Hi Niraj, > > There's another thread going on a similar lines... for some reason I hadn't > thought of using JAXB. One possibility was Castor which does a similar > thing in another way. Only apparently the builtin validation is not > specific enough. It does work with W3C Schemas which the Java site suggests > JAXB does not yet. Is that true? Does JAXB manage validation better? > > Jon > > Niraj Juneja wrote: > > > Are there any plans of making the FORM beans JAXB compliant..... > > > > The reason I ask .... I am working on a Framework for EAI applications > > that plugs into Struts. > > > > presently in the programming model I have a step where for each > > request the Application programmer needs to define a convertor > > > > > > > > public interface IStructsConvertor extends IConvertor { > > > > public void convertHttpReq2KBean(HttpServletRequest req , > > ActionMapping mapping, > > ActionForm form, KBean reqBean); > > } > > > > * KBean is a JAXB compliant object in my framework... > > > > and all that the convertor does is popullate reqBean from ActionForm. > > > > This whole step could be avoided if the ActionForm is someway > > compatible to JAXB generated objects. > > > > Thanks > > > > Niraj Juneja > > > > > > > > > > This message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the > > addressee(s) and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and > > CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended addressee(s), you are hereby > > notified that any use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this > > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > > communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its > > attachment(s) and notify the sender or Kanbay postmaster immediately. > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > > sender. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and > > any > > attachment(s) are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good > > computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus > free. > > This message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the > addressee(s) and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and > CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended addressee(s), you are hereby > notified that any use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its > attachment(s) and notify the sender or Kanbay postmaster immediately. > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and any > attachment(s) are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good > computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
