WAX Addons

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It occurred to me that many users will follow the pattern of writing
libraries for specific XML vocabularies (e.g. XML Schemas or XSLT) on top
of WAX and was wondering if addons make sence. If the intention exists, it
would encourage the community to work collectively on this, something that
never happened with other XML APIs.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by manosbat...@gmail.com on 20 Sep 2008 at 12:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by manosbat...@gmail.com on 20 Sep 2008 at 3:21

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement, Priority-Low
• Removed labels: Type-Defect, Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how common it is to output XML Schemas and 
XSLT from code. I can imagine 
writing code to generate and XML Schema from a database schema, but I can't 
think of a reason to generate 
XSLT.

Original comment by r.mark.v...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2008 at 2:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

My first impression was that this is a great idea, and that we should do 
everything
we can to support it.  IE:  Support standard extension points so that 
developers can
mix the goodness of WAX with the application / domain - specific "fluid 
interface"
(IE: method chaining).

But the more I think about it, the more I think that we don't need to do 
anything.

Suppose an application architect wants to provide an EDI library to their 
developers,
to make XML EDI message creation easier.  The best architectural solution is
generally for their object to contain WAX, as an implementation detail, rather 
than
to extend WAX, exposing the general / non-EDI specific WAX interfaces for client
(mis-)use.

I don't see a good use case for mixing WAX and domain specific APIs.  I think 
that
one would generally want to encourage layered separation, rather than 
entangling.

Original comment by jeffgr...@charter.net on 2 Oct 2008 at 2:05