On 22/03/06, Edward Slattery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have done some preliminary work on SDO integration with axis2C, and have > talked to some of the axis2c people about the work. There are two areas I > see that we could be worked on. > > The first is a conversion from an SDO data graph to a tree of AXIOM > objects. > This could be done by taking SDOXMLWriter for inspiration, and replacing > the > actual writing to XML part with a creation of an AXIOM element or > attribute. We could then flow SDOs over axis2c, and provided we had the > same data factory at the other end, could re-build them with an > SDOAxiomReader utility. > I also assume (maybe wrongly) that there is nothing preventing me using > the > SDOAxiomWriter to write XSD information, so we could flow both the data > and > the metadata if required. > > The second area of interest is the guththila parser. I have tested that it > can replace our libxml2 parser, and it seems to be capable of doing that. > We > could investigate having a kind of pluggable parser layer, and switch > parsers between libxml2 and guththila. We would have to work out the best > way of integrating - I.E take a copy of guththila and build with it, or > have > axis2c as a dependency of SDO for C++? The second is cleaner, but I > imagine > the PHP group might want the option of building SDO with only libxml2 for > now.
A dependency on Axis2C for SDO does not seem at all right to me. Ideally it would be nice for SDO to use whichever parser is available so the PHP folk could configure to use libxml2, which seems to be a standard for them, and we could configure to use a StAX parser. Check out the thread "*[jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-118) Adding Serializer/Deserializer for DataObject using StAX for better Axis2 AXIOM integration* " for a discussion on the Java side. The principles hold true for C++ as well. -- > Pete
