RE: AW: AW: [Objectbridge-developers] generating mapping files and da taba ses
Brought to you by:
thma
From: <ll...@li...> - 2001-08-26 17:03:50
|
Yeah. You are right there. The formats are too unestablished to depend on. It would be pretty easy to generate a XSLT program that can transform between the two formats. Then the castor tools would be applicable to ObJectBridge. Once I get to know the format better, I might be able to produce such a stylesheet. Then I could contribute the stylesheet to the castor tools as an objectbridge extension. /Lasse -----Original Message----- From: obj...@li... [mailto:obj...@li...] On Behalf Of Thomas Mahler Sent: 1. januar 1997 00:30 To: Lasse Lindg=E5rd Cc: obj...@li... Subject: Re: AW: AW: [Objectbridge-developers] generating mapping files and da taba ses Hi Lasse, Lasse Lindg=E5rd wrote: >=20 > Have you looked at the http://castor.exolab.org format for mapping files > ?? >=20 > As far as I can read from their mailing list several project exists that > can generate castor mapping files. DDL programs also exists. >=20 > I don't know castor JDO that well, but I looked at the mapping files and > they look pretty much the same contentwise as the objectbridge ones. >=20 > Wouldn't that be better than reinventing the wheel ? Sure the best thing would be to have a standardized DTD for O/R mappings. There are also some attempts in this direction (see for example Jon Garfunkels LORAX project http://www.coopdata.net/software/lorax/). There is also XMI which tries to be a unifed standard for UML models... There is also a DTD for describing mappings in JDO... But I none of these attempts has succeeded as a generally accepted standard. I also had a look at the Castor DTD. Of course it has things in it we could reuse. But it's all so intermixed with stuff for XML mapping, LDAP access, etc. that I won't like to have it as grammar for describing O/R mapping. Sure it would be great to have an O/R mappings interchangeable between both tools! =20 So long as there is no standard I guess the best thing we can do is to have a very simple DTD that fits all OJB mapping needs and nothing more. This will keep parsing simple. Once there is an established standard we can easily adopt to it. --Thomas >=20 > /Lasse >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Objectbridge-developers mailing list > Obj...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers _______________________________________________ Objectbridge-developers mailing list Obj...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers |