- From: Sekhar Vajjhala <Sekhar.Vajjhala@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:16:24 -0400
- To: Paul Kiel <paul@hr-xml.org>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, wsinterop@lists.hr-xml.org
- Message-id: <431ECC08.2000102@sun.com>
Paul, JAXB 2.0 (being developed in JCP as JSR 222) provides support for all of XML Schema features. JAXB 2.0 consists of both a specification, a RI (Reference Implementation) that implements the spec, and TCK (for compatiblity testing by JAXB Providers). Both the spec and RI can be downloaded from https://jaxb.dev.java.net . Regards Sekhar Vajjhala Paul Kiel wrote: > Folks, > > I am interested in people's experiences with code generation tools. > We have found several key constructs that cause problems with these > tools. Don't know if people have work arounds or recommendations on > better tools. We would love to recommend tools for our member > companies who are asking us for advice. > > So far, we have reports on Castor, XSDObjectGen, XSD.exe (ships with > vs.net), and CodeXS (built on xsd.exe). I hope to get reports on Axis > and I believe XMLBeans sometime soon. > > The key constructs that cause problems when creating classes are: > > 1) xsd:union. - This is the least supported feature of our schemas. > We had already been considering removing these as bad design anyway, > so this may add some force to that effort. > 2) xsd:pattern - This is supported by some tools and not others. > 3) having an element and a type with the same name. (also a problem > even if casing is different, as in a "MyType" element and a "mytype" > attribute) > 4) recursive content models > > Other oddities that only cause problems in some tools: > > 5) extension of complexTypes - XSDObjectGen in particular has a > problem with this, which seems odd as this is a major design feature > of xml schema. > 6) simpleContent extension using a xsd base type > 7) reserved keyword element names (such as "Value") > 8) too many anonymous types can lead to some class name collisions > when classes are generated > 9) enumerations in elements (enumerations in attributes worked fine. > wierd but true for a tool to remain nameless) > > > Here are features we don't even use, so we can't comment on (but > suspect there may be possible problems): > > A) substitutionGroups > B) redefine > C) abstract types > D) nillable > E) complexType restriction > F) list types > > I would very much be interested in a code generation tool that > supports # 1-9 above if you know of one. (Of course I also want a > million dollars to appear in my bank accout.) > > > Paul Kiel > HR-XML Consortium > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:19:20 UTC