Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
+1 on aligning ORYX with final version of BPMN 2.0.
I am curious why the Eclipse MDT BPMN 2.0 project chose not to use JAXB 2? In
my experience JAXB2 has been a very solid foundation for XML Data Binding in
the implementation of many specifications. Is there something diferent about
BPMN 2.0 that JAXB is not a good fit?
-1 on not using JAXB
Original comment by farrukh.najm
on 12 Aug 2010 at 1:14
You might want to check out the Eclipse Modeling Framework. The BPMN2 spec is
based on CMOF and XSD, and EMF has all the tooling to create a good ecore-based
model that takes both best parts of CMOF and XSD, with the ability to create
qnames while checking the object type for example, or the possibility to manage
multiple resources through BPMN. JAXB would not work at all for this kind of
job.
Original comment by antoine....@gmail.com
on 12 Aug 2010 at 12:12
@Antoine> Thanks for the info. Forgive my unfamiliarity with CMOF. Can you tell
me:
* what BPMN 2 uses CMOF for? Is it complimentary to what it uses XSD for or is
it an alternate model description language from OMG?
* What would one lose if one where to only build JAXB 2 bindings from the BPMN
2 XSD?
* What precise version of BPMN 2.0 xsd is oryx project currently supporting. I
cannot tell for sure because the generated XML does not have schemaLocation
specified.
Original comment by farrukh.najm
on 12 Aug 2010 at 12:19
Here is a presentation of the work to reconcile the CMOF and the XSD:
http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/20177
Both CMOF and XSD schemas are valid, but the XSD cannot explicitly enforce the
type of object it references through qnames. The CMOF has this ability.
If you use JAXB only, you will not be able to enforce the types of the
references that use qnames.
AFAIK Oryx uses the beta 1 schema.
Original comment by antoine....@gmail.com
on 12 Aug 2010 at 12:25
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
antoine....@gmail.com
on 15 Jun 2010 at 9:47