Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/23/2006 02:02:00 PM: > I think we need to be careful to distinguish the needs we have for > loading our configurations from the needs users have of SDO in general. > I think the SCA schemas have things in them that are atypical: lots of > extensibility, many namespaces, custom data types, few > attributes/properties and so forth. That's what I initially thought until Sebastien pointed me at the model - which I finally spent more than 2 minutes looking at :-) I think that aside from the wildcard extensibility hooks, the model is, itself, quite reasonably structured.
> On the other hand, our use case > doesn't need things like change tracking or streaming that SDO provides. My main point is that this IS a very common general use case. We need to support it well. > > We need a good SDO implementation, we need a loading mechanism that can > handle our configurations; the two don't have to be the same. If they > are, that is good; if they aren't, that's not bad. True ... but if we can make them the same, I think we should. Frank. > > -- > Jeremy > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > Raymond Feng wrote: > >> Hi, Frank. > >> > >> I think I fully agree with you. An efficient databinding is what we're > >> looking for. > >> > >> Ideally, if SDO later on supports lazy-loading (create the DataObject > >> skeleton first and pull in properties as they're assessed) from > >> XMLStreamReader, I assume we'll take advantage of the benifits > >> advocated by both camps (Databinding vs. StAX). > >> > >> Raymond > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Budinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM > >> Subject: Re: Framework for StAX-based model loading > >> > >> > >>> I stand by my statement that the EMF problem is short term pain for long > >>> term gain :-) I think that in the long term using the SDO generator will > >>> be the best and easiest way to do this. Yes I am biased, but I've > >>> seen it > >>> before - avoiding reuse/dependencies works nicely at first, but as > >>> things > >>> grow/change and get more comlicated, the amount of reworking/reinventing > >>> becomes quite a nightmare. The opposite problem, which I think we're > >>> suffering from here, is that the reusable component that we are > >>> trying to > >>> leverage isn't as nice and clean and a perfect fit as we'd like, so it > >>> really looks undesirable. Since we have control of all the pieces, in > >>> this > >>> case, I think we have a great opportunity to make it a clean fit. And > >>> like > >>> I said in my reply to Jeremy, earlier, I really strongly feel that the > >>> problems that we're identifying here are not unique to SCA, so fixing > >>> them > >>> is really in our best interest. > >>> > >>> Frank. > >>> > >>> "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/23/2006 10:13:24 AM: > >>> > >>>> On 3/23/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> <snip/> > >>>> > >>>> As the binding itself uses JAXB2 (though it may change in > >>>> > the future), I have to include all eclipse dependencies and SDO > >>>> stuff, > >>>> > just to load the system configuration files :( > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From the discussion I'm starting to be persuaded by some of the > >>> arguments > >>>> for the SDO approach, but this EMF dependency seems a draw back. If > >>> we're > >>>> going to support alternate data bindings for the WS binding its not > >>> great to > >>>> still be dragging in EMF to run the thing. And I'd guess it would be > >>> much > >>>> easier to sell SDO to say the Axis2 guys to use instead of XmlBeans if > >>> there > >>>> was a pure Java SDO impl. Any Axis2 guys listening who'd comment on > >>> this? > >>>> > >>>> As another comparison look at Axis2, they have their own very simple > >>> Axis > >>>> Data Binding (ADB) which supports simple XSDs, and they use XmlBeans > >>>> for > >>> all > >>>> the complicated stuff. They don't use XmlBeans all the time because > >>>> lots > >>> of > >>>> things don't need the complexity a full blown data binding brings. And > >>> as > >>>> Guillaume points out, the SCA binding schema are usually pretty simple. > >>>> > >>>> ...ant > >>> > >> > >> > > Raymond, > > > > That's a very good point, I agree. > > > > I think that this whole discussion thread is very useful as it helps us > > identify requirements and areas of improvement for our SDO databinding > > and codegen story. For example, Guillaume mentioned that it would be > > great to have a Maven 1 SDO codegen plugin, as ServiceMix is still built > > with Maven 1 at the moment (and I guess a number of other projects out > > there still use Maven 1 as well). I can spend some time in the next few > > days and work with anybody who would like to volunteer and try to wrap > > the code generator in a Maven 1 plugin, if it helps. Guillaume, are you > > using Ant at all? or just Maven 1? > > > >
