Article:		Comparing Java Data Binding Tools
Subject:		Castor
Date:		2003-09-10 00:56:20
From:		Olivier Vanekem
Hello, I read the article and found that possibilities of Castor are a little underestimated. In our project we use the Castor generic unmarshaller allowing to unmarshall an XML stream into an Object that will be casted later on by the application. At unmarshalling time we do not know the package or object type that will be unmarshalled, you can supply a mapping file to Castor for doing the necessary mappings. Also we do target generation in certain packages based on namespaces, you have then to generate your packages one by one and have a correctly adapted castorbuilder.properties file in order to resolve links between packages/namespaces in the XSD's.

Previous Message

Next Message

• Castor
  2003-09-16 11:28:39 Mette Hedin [Reply]
  
  It is true that you can add mappings as configurations with Castor, and I believe some of the other tools as well. However, I made the conscious choice to not take added configurations into account when doing the comparison. This was done for several reasons.

  
  The main reason was to not use any special configurations for any of the tools used in the comparison. This ties in with my general dislike of having configurations being required in order to accomplish things, as having a large set of configurations makes software more difficult to develop, install and maintain. However, I do agree that in many cases configurations can solve many of the issues brought forward in this article.