[starksm64]

Also, I think the schema.xsd approach sucks because you are coupling your object model to the schema. If you refactor your model, you have to push out another version of the schema.

And this differs from coupling the object model to a particular ObjectModelFactory/SchemaBinding implementation in what way?

[starksm64]

I'm getting seriously annoyed here...as it seems the week+ work I have done learning and partially implement AOP parsing using the SchemaBinding approach needs to be trashed and I have to wait until Adrian finishes his ObjectModelFactory version before I can complete the AOP/MC XML stuff (and actually make it usable so I can use it in stuff like Embeddable EJB3). yet again, I am waiting on somebody and there's a good chance I'll get involved into something else and won't be able to work on this shit for yet another few months...


Then again, I could just write the XML stuff for Microcontainer myself, which would annoy me too, but hey, at least i'd be moving in some forward direction.

Nothing like synching up on dependencies before going on a coding bender.

[starksm64]

Not yet, but I will be changing over to the schema annotation approach.
i.e. schema.xsd defines xml -> object bindings
this coupled with the ANY processing should allow us to mix and match
and also define new bindings "on the fly".

Does this apply to the bean deployer in 4.0.3 as well?

[aloubyansky]

so, I have to use the

<jbxb:class>

element? I'm using raw SchemaBinding stuff with TypeBindings and all that junk. I'm not using an ObjectModelFactory.

I'm not even sure what the <jbxb:class> does. Does it even work for non-ObjectModelFactory? (SchemaBinding).

thanks

If I didn't know the author of the post, I would just ignore it. But since I do, I feel obliged to answer.

rtfm

[aloubyansky]

I don't know that jbossxb currently has support for mapping an ANY from the current namespace to one thing vs an ANY from another namespace. Alexey would have to comment on that.

Given that the SchemaBindingResolver is able to resolve the namespace, it should work.
It maybe even possible to bind the same namespace to different object models by making SchemaBindingResolver return different SchemaBindings for the same namespace when ANY type is met.

[aloubyansky]

This was discussed and agreed back in March:
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=61570&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

The change makes no difference to end users and allows greater flexibilty
in our own parsing without having to know the details or worry about backwards/forwards
compatibility.

Alex has already prototyped, I believe?

I don't understand what exactly you mean here. Currently, if default binding rules are not sufficient you use XSD annotations or modify bindings programmatically. If you change the object model, the changes might require updates in bindings whatever binding approach you use.

[bill.burke]

I'm getting seriously annoyed here...as it seems the week+ work I have done learning and partially implement AOP parsing using the SchemaBinding approach needs to be trashed and I have to wait until Adrian finishes his ObjectModelFactory version before I can complete the AOP/MC XML stuff (and actually make it usable so I can use it in stuff like Embeddable EJB3). yet again, I am waiting on somebody and there's a good chance I'll get involved into something else and won't be able to work on this shit for yet another few months...


Then again, I could just write the XML stuff for Microcontainer myself, which would annoy me too, but hey, at least i'd be moving in some forward direction.

Nothing like synching up on dependencies before going on a coding bender.

Whatever...I thought this shit was done. Honestly I really don't care anymore. I'm going to work on something else where I can actually make progress on it...