- From: David Carver <d_a_carver@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:56:27 -0400
- To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- CC: paul.downey@bt.com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xmlschema-dev@w3c.org
> > So I agree, XML does not need to be dumbed down for this reason. > After all, you'd have to get rid of xs:choice if you followed the same > logic, and to me, that is fundamental to XSD! > I agree, you don't need to dumb down the XSD specification. Personally, I'm not a big fan of data binding with XSD, but know there are valid reasons to do it. I did a very informal review of Data Binding frameworks about 6 months ago when I was reviewing the migration from OAGIS 8.0 Schemas to OAGIS 9.0 schemas. What I found out was the following: Liquid XML - Good Data Binding support, was able to handle all OAGIS 8. and 9.x schemas even the rarely used features. JAXB 1.0 - Partial support for the Schemas. JAXB 2.0 - On Par with LiquidXML in generating classes and XSD Schema support. Still however, not 100%. XMLBeans - Excellent Schemas support, handled everything without complaint. 100% compliant. XSD.EXE - Bare bones Schema Support, not recommended for use with OAGI 8 or 9 schemas. XSDObjectGen.EXE - Much better Microsoft tool that handles both OAGI 8 and 9 schemas. N I did not test execution, and there is a seperate report that was presented at XML 2005 (not by me), that shows even if a Data Binding framework generates the classes it may not necessarily generate an XML Instance that validates against the same Schemas. So there is more work to be done in the frameworks. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:56:28 UTC