You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> on 2006/10/07 23:34:09 UTC
Why are we not using xmlbeans for attributes.xsd processing?
Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
processing (config.xml) ?
--jason
Re: Why are we not using xmlbeans for attributes.xsd processing?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Well, I'm not in love with the custom processing... I just fall
slightly on the not-XMLBeans side of the fence. I'm certainly open to
alternatives or discussion.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Granted 2m seems a bit hefty though...
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
> > attributes.xsd... :)
> >
> > But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
> > simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
> > ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
> > for the other stuff anyway. Also, config.xml has to be loaded
> > super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
> > high in the class loader hierarchy presently. Since it's a couple of
> > MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
> > anything at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
> >> processing (config.xml) ?
> >>
> >> --jason
> >>
>
>
Re: Why are we not using xmlbeans for attributes.xsd processing?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Granted 2m seems a bit hefty though...
--jason
On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
> attributes.xsd... :)
>
> But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
> simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
> ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
> for the other stuff anyway. Also, config.xml has to be loaded
> super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
> high in the class loader hierarchy presently. Since it's a couple of
> MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
> anything at all.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
>> processing (config.xml) ?
>>
>> --jason
>>
Re: Why are we not using xmlbeans for attributes.xsd processing?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
local-attributes.xsd is attributes.xsd miss-named :-P
Sucks to have to do all this custom processing though... not very
happy that we strip out comments from config.xml and overwrite all of
that. Well, maybe when jaxb2 is std we can just use that.
Still sucks to not be able to use tools to handle this for us just
because of some extra size somewhere.... :-(
--jason
On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
> attributes.xsd... :)
>
> But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
> simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
> ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
> for the other stuff anyway. Also, config.xml has to be loaded
> super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
> high in the class loader hierarchy presently. Since it's a couple of
> MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
> anything at all.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
>> processing (config.xml) ?
>>
>> --jason
>>
Re: Why are we not using xmlbeans for attributes.xsd processing?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
attributes.xsd... :)
But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
for the other stuff anyway. Also, config.xml has to be loaded
super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
high in the class loader hierarchy presently. Since it's a couple of
MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
anything at all.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
> processing (config.xml) ?
>
> --jason
>