Comments on: Java-XML Binders Compared

By: Arif Shaon

Arif Shaon — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:45:22 +0000

Hi, is it possible to dynamically java classes from an XSD file using XMLBeans rather than using SCOMP? Thanks

By: Marco Gralike

Marco Gralike — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:07:04 +0000

Apparrently to day is security day (many security discussions today), and now you post is popping up in the “a lot of readings today” list. So i can’t ignore this sign

Question: didn’t you introduce a security problem by storing the username/password/database xml file on the webserver, which most of the time is in the DMZ…?

By: harm

harm — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:59:38 +0000

The following links point to some very interesting articles about XML-binding and comparing different binder frame-works. Data binding, Part 1: Code generation approaches -- JAXB and more
Data binding, Part 2: Performance

By: JRadical

JRadical — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:49:09 +0000

Hea man, your Date is off. Anyway it’s April 04,2005 so I have no idea how number 8 is dated 08/1/2005. It’s nice to know some people
are going in the right direction. Clearly Document/Literal not wrapped is the way to go. To bad most developers and architects have no
idea what the hell they are REALLY doing when they creat RPCencoded WS and find themselves maintaing disparate XSD’s instead of disparate OS’s.

By: harm

harm — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:59:02 +0000

Dear commenters,
Based on your comments I’ve added some text to my post. The work from Kirill is a good one. He has compared more binding frameworks. You will see in his results that the centricity makes a difference: a more XML-centric framework seems slower and consumes more memory than a Java-centric framework.

By: Kirill

Kirill — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:13:09 +0000

You are welcome to see a more complete coverage of the current frameworks (including JiBX, Javolution, XStream and Zeus) at http://jroller.com/page/javaproxy/20050108#choose_your_xml_binding_framework

By: John Munsch

John Munsch — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:45:05 +0000

You should really really take a look at JiBX. We used it on a project last year and the performance blew everything else we tried away. It’s also not particularly difficult to learn.

If I had anything at all negative to say about it it would be that you are better off if you can do some tailoring of the XML format to suit what JiBX parses easily. Some XML we encountered did not fit smoothly to its model. But that was fairly strange XML too.

For easy parsing of arbitrary XML nothing beat Digester. But we tried to pair it with Betwixt to go back the other way (i.e. Java to XML) and we were sorely disappointed in Betwixt.

We also tried Castor but were unimpressed either in the ease of use, flexibility, or performance areas.

By: Alex Greif

Alex Greif — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:07:28 +0000

Hi,
have you looked at XStream?

Cheers,
Alex.

By: Leon van Tegelen

Leon van Tegelen — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:42:19 +0000

Hi Harm

as far as I understand, Toplink allows you to Map any Java Class to an XML document, therefore it does not dictate the “java model” , which in my opinion is very nice!

By: harm

harm — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:22:35 +0000

Hi Leon,

The Toplink binder uses JAXB as does Oracle’s XDK. I would not be too suprized if they use the same base classes. Because JAXB is used I wonder if the vast amount of classes (seen in the screenshot of JAXB in table 1), is also generated by the Oracle binders. In that case both Oracle binders are, in my opinion, not the most optimal binders, but only an extra test can sort that out.