Re: [xacml-users] Schema to Java binding

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

As a spec author I have always disliked substitutionGroups for this very reason. They are not a natural concept when binding to OO languages like Java.
That is why in ebXML RegRep 4.0 specification we moved from substitutionGroups to type substitution even though there were some objections.

It has been some time ago but I did the JAXB bindings for XACML 2.0 schema in the sunxacml project:

http://sunxacml.sourceforge.net/

I cannot recall specifics but you can take a look here:

http://sourceforge.net/scm/?type=hg&group_id=73884

Best of luck.

On 07/01/2011 12:11 PM, Nick Duan wrote:

002c01cc3809$86ba9e20$942fda60$@net" type="cite">

Has anyone had any problems with XACML to Java data binding?  The complexity of the schema and the combination of them (with SAML, XML digital signature, XML encryption) really make the data binding very complicated.  For instance, the schema is using substitutionGroup quite extensively, and it was a nightmare to bind an element with an substitutionGroup to Java, especially when those types are defined in abstract.  The JAXB spec states that the element with substitutionGroup in the schema have to be mapped explicitly (e.g. via custom binding).  Another problem is that the xacml-context:AttributeValueType is define with xsd:any.   This is just a wildcard that no binding framework can deal by default and has to be defined via some custom binding.  If everyone is creating his/her own custom binding, there won’t be any assurance of interoperability.

 

I’d like to learn from the schema authors on any suggestions of how to deal with the binding issues.  Is this the intension that more concrete elements/types be defined in some derived schemas within some profile standards? 

 

Any comments/suggestions are highly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

ND

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com