axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject Re: [Axis2]Data binding API?
Date Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:03:33 GMT
Dennis Sosnoski wrote:

> Hi Ajith,
>
> Sounds great on the data binding support! I'll check it out within the 
> next couple of weeks. JiBX currently uses XMLPull for input, but I can 
> probably implement a simple wrapper for converting between the Axis 
> StAX parser and an XMLPull API. Are you listening, 

that should be very easy - those two APIs are very similar (XmlPull is 
just much smaller providing all functionality in two interfaces and one 
factory ...)

> Alek - any comments? 

around but just insanely busy :)

> The output may be a little tougher, since that's oriented toward 
> writing directly to a stream through a custom interface; it may 
> require some post-1.0 tweaks to JiBX, but shouldn't present any major 
> problems.

i am much more concerned with supporting multiple data binding models 
and flexible pipeline to allow databinding of parts of XML message or 
not binding for parts of it at all (for example binding some header but 
not binding parts of SOAP body or binding it efficiently into int[] and 
bypassing XmlBeans that is used for other parts ...)

best,

alek ("busy")

>
> Ajith Ranabahu wrote:
>
>> Hello Dennis,
>>
>> The internals of the Databinding framework are as follows
>>
>> 1. We have something called extensions that run before the actual
>> code generator. For XMLBeans we have an extension that takes the
>> Schema element from the WSDL file and feeds it into the XB schema
>> parser. The logic of XB is completely inside the XB extension. After
>> the XB code generation, a type mapper is populated with the generated
>> types and passed on to the Axis2 code generator.
>> 2. The generated classes include something called the
>> DataBindSupporter. DataBindSupporter has 'toOM' and 'FromOM' methods
>> which accept either a generated object and or the omelement
>> respectively and does the necessary conversion. The databinding logic
>> is completely inside the databinding supporters.
>>
>> So as you can see the codegenerator is completely based on the
>> strategy of passing a schema element and getting the type map. You can
>> customize it with minimum effort. In particular have a look at the
>> XMLBeansExtension.java class in the
>> org.apache.axis2.wsdl.codegen.extension package
>>
>> As for the MTOM support we have not yet thought about it seriously (I
>> mean how it affects code generation :)). Since MTOM is solely a
>> transport time thingy (no description of it in the XSD or the WSDL) we
>> were thinking of a user switch in the tool that will generate a
>> slightly different bunch of code which optimizes the output.
>>
>> On 7/14/05, Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> I recently made some changes (going into JiBX RC1) to support using 
>>> JiBX
>>> with SOAP. These are primarily designed around what I've found was
>>> necessary for JibxSoap, but I'm also planning to hook into Axis2 and 
>>> the
>>> same requirements are likely to apply there. I know the 0.9 version has
>>> XmlBeans support in place - has anything been done yet to define a
>>> general-purpose API usable with other data binding frameworks? I'm
>>> interested both in runtime support and code generation (so that there's
>>> a way for Axis to pass off a schema subset to be handled by the data
>>> binding framework, along with any appropriate customization parameters
>>> for the data binding code generation, and get back some sort of map 
>>> from
>>> types to classes).
>>>
>>> I'm also curious if anyone has considered how MTOM is going to work in
>>> combination with data binding. It seems like there'll have to be some
>>> way for the data binding framework to pass back information about the
>>> blobs to be sent as attachments, and to access the attachments when
>>> unmarshalling. In the case of JiBX I'm planning to add that in 1.1 with
>>> an internal API that allows JiBX to communicate with whatever runs the
>>> transport, then supply separate implementations of the transport
>>> interface for different usages (JibxSoap, Axis2, etc.). That aspect of
>>> MTOM has always seemed a bad smell to me, but since The Powers That Be
>>> (AKA the W3C) have decided it's the wave of the future I'll do my best
>>> to work with it.
>>>
>>>  - Dennis
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>


-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay


Mime
View raw message