<html><body>
<p><tt>gavin.king@gmail.com wrote on 01/08/2009 08:47:00 AM:<br>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Jim Knutson <knutson@us.ibm.com> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > * Any Java-XML mappings should not be defined by this spec. JAXB already<br>
> > covers appropriate Java-XML mappings and we shouldn't define anything<br>
> > different. It's a pain to do and get it right for all cases.<br>
> <br>
> JAXB is not appropriate for the problem of component configuration and<br>
> is not intended for that usecase.<br>
> <br>
> It's two different things. The XML format defined by web beans fills<br>
> the same ecological niche as Spring configuration files - which,<br>
> whether you love 'em or hate 'em are a phenomenally successful species<br>
> of XML.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>You're missing the point. JAXB covers a range of things related to Java</tt><br>
<tt>and XML. One of those is a mapping of Java to XML schema types. There are</tt><br>
<tt>other things that JAXB gets involved with, but there's 75 pages or so</tt><br>
<tt>devoted just to mapping Java types to XML. There's been a huge amount of</tt><br>
<tt>thought and experience that has gone into that mapping and I trust that</tt><br>
<tt>and would prefer consistency with it rather than defining some unique</tt><br>
<tt>mapping that may or may not work in all cases.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Am I missing some nuance here that requires a unique mapping?</tt><br>
<tt><br>
Thanks,<br>
Jim Knutson<br>
WebSphere J2EE Architect</tt><br>
<br>
</body></html>