[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of POJO Server] - Re: JAXBDeployer

[jason.greene@jboss.com]

"scott.stark at jboss.org" wrote : "jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  |   | Either way the mapping of namespace to classes has to be known before unmarshalling, the difference is that you can lazy load classes with JBossXB.    If lazy discovery is important, we should get involved with the spec and get it added.   
  |   | 
  | The more immeadiate question is whether getting involved with jaxb to get jbossxb features into it is worth while. 
  | 

I definately can't say, but my guess is that its not necessary at this point. since so much is built on JBossXB. However, longer term it should be looked at IMO. 

anonymous wrote : 
  | "jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  |   | The issue with a mapping like this is that if there is any similarity between the types that could be present on a wildcard, then using schema subtyping is more appropriate.
  |   | 
  | I don't see how that resolves the problem. That just introduces a common base schema type for the interface, but it still has a wildcard because the implementation details are outside of the contract. This is a common issue with a plugin architecture.
  | 

It doesn't. I was looking at it from the perspective of how a general xml binding framework should work.  Mapping a wildcard to an interface, or common subtype adds restrictions that aren't represented in the schema definition.  So Object (or some binding based wildcard java type) is a more natural container for a schema wildcard. However, I can see where being able to add your own generic wildcard type would simplify the programming model.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4007100#4007100

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4007100