Jim Marino wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > >> Jim Marino wrote: >> >>> I think this this is a really good approach and will give us a great >>> binding/extension story for Tuscany. Two comments on the statement >>> that the model may look a little different than what we have here. >>> The first one is that in general, I'm o.k. with that as long as it >>> follows common Java idioms. I don't think this will be a problem. >>> The second is I'm happy to help out porting the runtime core to use >>> the new model so just let me know when we have a cut of the new model. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >> I like this approach too. I think that this compromise addresses the >> requirements that we discussed before, a simple handwritten POJO >> model, easy to extend, integration with StAX, and ability to generate >> loaders at some point for people who would like to extend Tuscany >> without writing XML parsing code. I'm also very happy to see the >> introduction of new options to generate simpler SDOs and support SDOs >> defined by Java interfaces in addition to XSD (which is a very >> important scenario that came up several times on this list). With >> some minor hacks to the SDO code generator, I was able to generate >> this morning the pure JavaBean model that Frank describes in step (a) >> and I'm now starting to look at step (b). I should have a first cut >> of the new model in about two days. It will be very similar to the >> current logical model, but I'm thinking about checking it in the >> sandbox first so that people can take a look and help shape it - and >> make sure it follows common Java idioms :) before we port the runtime >> core to it. Does that make sense? > > > Works for me. Once we take a look at it, I'm happy to help out porting > the core over. Hopefully the changes won't be that significant and we > can port it without breaking the build. >
In preparation for this, how about I switch over to the StAX loader with the current model and check that everything is still working. We can then remove the old physical model, transformers and SCDLModelLoader registry in preparation for the new one? -- Jeremy
