[JETSPEED 2] using commons Digetser/Betwixt as an eventual replac ement for Castor

["Weaver, Scott" <Sw...@rippe.com>]

I would like to see what everyone's opinion on starting to replace Castor with a combination of Digester/Betwixt.  I have already been able to replicate and surpass what we already have in Castor with regards to marshaling the portlet.xml for deployment.  Digester offers much more flexibility when mapping xml into an existing object model than Castor does.  For example, we had to extend the existing object model to make it work with Castor, with digester, this was not necessary.  I am using our standard Pluto implementation classes with little or no modifications.  IMOHO, the learning curve for digester is MUCH smaller than Castor's.  Within a matter of an hour, I was able to surpass the current level of compatibility we have with the Castor implementation, and that was with no previous experience with Digester.  Another advantage is the size, digester and betwixt are tiny compared to Castor.  

So, I would like to get everyone's blessing before I replace that Castor piece with Digester for deploying the portlet.xml descriptor.


Regards,
O-------------------O
| Scott T Weaver    o---------------O
o-------------------o               |
| Apache Jetspeed Portal Project    |
| Apache Pluto Portlet Container    |
o-------------------o               |
| weaver@apache.org o---------------O
O-------------------O

Re: [JETSPEED 2] using commons Digetser/Betwixt as an eventual replac ement for Castor

[robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>]

hi scott

were you thinking about using plain old digester or betwixt (which uses 
digester)?

- robert

On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 07:23 PM, Weaver, Scott wrote:

> I would like to see what everyone's opinion on starting to replace Castor 
> with a combination of Digester/Betwixt.  I have already been able to 
> replicate and surpass what we already have in Castor with regards to 
> marshaling the portlet.xml for deployment.  Digester offers much more 
> flexibility when mapping xml into an existing object model than Castor 
> does.  For example, we had to extend the existing object model to make it 
> work with Castor, with digester, this was not necessary.  I am using our 
> standard Pluto implementation classes with little or no modifications.  
> IMOHO, the learning curve for digester is MUCH smaller than Castor's.  
> Within a matter of an hour, I was able to surpass the current level of 
> compatibility we have with the Castor implementation, and that was with 
> no previous experience with Digester.  Another advantage is the size, 
> digester and betwixt are tiny compared to Castor.
>
> So, I would like to get everyone's blessing before I replace that Castor 
> piece with Digester for deploying the portlet.xml descriptor.
>
>
> Regards,
> O-------------------O
> | Scott T Weaver    o---------------O
> o-------------------o               |
> | Apache Jetspeed Portal Project    |
> | Apache Pluto Portlet Container    |
> o-------------------o               |
> | weaver@apache.org o---------------O
> O-------------------O
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org