RE: JSR-000093: JAXR - your opinions?

[Alex Ceponkus <aceponkus@bowstreet.com>]

I think JAXR will complement the work being done in ebXML regrep.  I believe
the proper approach has been taken: have one group of people deal with open
wire formats to ensure interoperability; then have other groups who have
some interest in certain languages provide the bindings.  We would run into
problems if we had the same group try to tackle wire formats and language
bindings, because a particular language/platform/etc would be inadvertently
biased.

I believe the DOM confused things by trying to provide a large number of
bindings and ended up spec'ing to the least common denominator.  For
example, the Java bindings can't use method overloading because certain
scripting languages don't support it (getAttribute, getAttributeNS, argh!)
That opened the door to the JDOM people to make a proper binding to Java
that Java developers would find useful.  

Alex

--
Alex Ceponkus
Technical Lead, Web Services Standards
Bowstreet


-----Original Message-----
From:	Bob Sutor [SMTP:rss@sutor.com]
Sent:	Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:52 PM
To:	ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	JSR-000093: JAXR - your opinions?

I would be interested in hearing the opinions of this group regarding the
proposed JSR-000093 Java(TM) API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR) at

http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/communityprocess/jsr/jsr_093_jaxr.html

particularly because it includes as contributions ebXML Registry 
Information
Model Specification and the ebXML Registry Services Specification. In
particular, it raises again the issue of specific language bidings for
XML-related specifications and who should do them (reminds me of the DOM),
and how to deal with such bindings when the primary means of accessing an
application is via XML messaging.

Bob Sutor, IBM
ebXML Vice-Chair