gavin.king@gmail.com wrote on 01/08/2009 08:47:00 AM:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Jim Knutson <knutson@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * Any Java-XML mappings should not be defined by this spec.  JAXB already
> >   covers appropriate Java-XML mappings and we shouldn't define anything
> >   different.  It's a pain to do and get it right for all cases.
>
> JAXB is not appropriate for the problem of component configuration and
> is not intended for that usecase.
>
> It's two different things. The XML format defined by web beans fills
> the same ecological niche as Spring configuration files - which,
> whether you love 'em or hate 'em are a phenomenally successful species
> of XML.

You're missing the point.  JAXB covers a range of things related to Java
and XML.  One of those is a mapping of Java to XML schema types.  There are
other things that JAXB gets involved with, but there's 75 pages or so
devoted just to mapping Java types to XML.  There's been a huge amount of
thought and experience that has gone into that mapping and I trust that
and would prefer consistency with it rather than defining some unique
mapping that may or may not work in all cases.

Am I missing some nuance here that requires a unique mapping?

Thanks,
Jim Knutson
WebSphere J2EE Architect