The Summary page does not seem to mention the minimum version of Java
required to run the various products. This would be a useful addition.
Likewise it would be useful if the licensing and re-distribution
requirements were noted.
Also, it says that JAXB consists of 5 jars, 2.4MB. However, all I
could find on the Sun Website was a link to Java Web Services
Developer pack 1.6, which is 27MB or 30MB in size. It would be useful
to include download size (and ease of use finding the jars!)
XStream is normally used with XPP - did you test with this? If so,
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 01:36 -0700, Kirill Grouchnikov wrote:
> I'm soory, but i am really tired of this fruitless dispute.
i for one am very glad at that. i'm also glad that you finally got round
to giving your plug for JAXB2 (bit slow, i thought).
> This will be my last mail on below issues.
a refusal to correct factual inaccuracies speaks volumes :)
> > > Take a look at
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/betwixt/dependencies > > and
> > > note the following line: " The following is a list of
> > > dependencies for this project. These dependencies are
> > > required to compile and run the application". It may be
> > not
> > > your fault, but once i want to use betwixt, i'm stuck
> > with
> > > all these jars.
> > you're missing my point: resolver.jar and which.jar are
> > not on that
> > list. your summary is inaccurate. if you're going to take
> > on the role of
> > critique then it is important for your credibility that
> > you make
> > accurate comments in your summary.
> Going from
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/betwixt/dependencies.html > to the link on xml commons and to its download section
> http://xml.apache.org/mirrors.cgi . DL the
> xml-commons-1.0.b2.tar.gz file. It contains three jars,
> xml-apis.jar, resolver.jar and which.jar. Nowhere on
> Betwixt site i've seen that i must take only xml-apis.jar.
you downloaded some files from xml-commons (the wrong files BTW) and
didn't like the names they had. betwixt has no dependency on them, just
a dependency on a SAX parser. so, your comment is factually inaccurate.
and yet, you still refuse to rephrase your inaccurate and misleading
so, please change the comment to 'misleading documentation' or whatever.
> > if your basic complaint is that the size of the
> > dependency tree is a
> > negative: great! just say that.
> In "What are the factors that you use for "ease-of-use"
> scoring?" section of FAQ you can see that distinct names of
> jar files are part of rating. Number of jar files isn't.
you FAQ is an interesting document. it seems to be very creative in
rating some points (for example, jar names) whilst ignoring others (such
as how hard the generation process is).
i also note that you felt the need to defend yourself against criticism
for many of your controversial ratings. seems i'm not alone in believing
that if you improved your methodology then your criticisms would be
taken more seriously.
> > > > > # the marshaler and the unmarshaler require
> > > > specifying
> > > > > root xml tag name
> > > >
> > > > this is inaccurate. betwixt does not require specific
> > > > root tags.
> > >
> > > Taken from
> > >
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/betwixt/guide/examples.html > > > :
> > >
> > > // Write example bean as base element 'person'
> > > beanWriter.write("person", new PersonBean("John Smith",
> > > 21));
> > >
> > > // Register beans so that betwixt knows what the xml is
> > to
> > > be converted to
> > > // Since the element mapped to a PersonBean isn't
> > called
> > > the same,
> > > // need to register the path as well
> > > beanReader.registerBeanClass("person",
> > PersonBean.class);
> > this describes how the example works.
> > do you intend to replace your inaccurate line with
> > something more
> > accurate like: poor example code (or something).
> Once again, going to "What are the factors that you use for
> "ease-of-use" scoring?" section of FAQ - "Documentation
> (not Javadocs)". If you have poor documentation, you have
> poor library. Period.
you chose to write something that is factually incorrect: betwixt does
not require specific root tags.
i do find it surprising that you refuse to correct specific factual
inaccuracies and this gives me reason to doubt your sincerity. i have
made no complaints about your low score (as a subjective rating, that is
your right) and would not have complained had you commented about the
documentation. you did not.
you project would have much great impact if it were not so partisan and
if you took the trouble to replace inaccurate comments. for the record,
betwixt is not the only entry which has inaccuracies.
> > > > IMO it would be much more illuminating if you listed
> > the
> > > > natural
> > > > weaknesses of start-from-java binders (as you see
> > them)
> > > > separately and
> > > > then just classify those which adopt this approach.
> > >
> > > How about a link from the main page at
> > > https://bindmark.dev.java.net/ (to Ronald Bourret
> > site)?
> > your site does not try to apply any classify to them,
> > though. Ronald
> > seems to take a little bit of an unusual way to do it but
> > any
> > classification would be better than none.
> The project is a benchmark, not a classificator.
but if you are so sure that generative start-from-java solutions are so
much superior for all applications then why not create some benchmarks
which are not systematically biased against start-from-java solutions.
or are you just a little afraid of xstream?
> > > > > # if ByteArrayOutputStream is used for
> > > > > # default log level for BeanReader is INFO
> > > >
> > > > this is inaccurate. the default log level depends on
> > your
> > > > environment.
> > >
> > > And my environment is pretty standard (it has commons
> > > logging and JDK 5.0).
> > then why not actually clarify the statement so it's true?
> So, how the "default log level for BeanReader is INFO and
> it produces messages on the examples (and real code) which
> can be turned off only via configuration" is not clear?
clear but incorrect.
the default log level you are talking about is (i suspect but cannot be
sure without knowing your environment in detail) for java.util.logging
in 1.5. please correct the comment.
> > > JCK is not a major negative point as long as it
> > > produce results when everything is OK. If something's
> up -
> > > let me see it, if not - why should i care if some
> > > had empty options popped from the stack? And that C24
> > > of commons logging caused OutOfMemoryError since the
> > > logging infrastructure never released the resources
> > > about 8000 marshalings).
> > that's my point: you don't like JCL so why not say that?
> I suppose that JaxMe uses JCL. However, since nothing
> irrelevant is printed to the console, no mention of JCL is
> there. Only once it gets in the way, it is mentioned.
just for the record, jaxme uses log4j
> > > > i'll be interested to see whether you decide to
> > > > the inaccuracies
> > > > in your summary listed above.
> > > Am i missing something to correct (silly me)?
> > yes (silly you)
> > the words you've chosen are inaccurate for two and could
> be better
> > chosen for a number of others. for someone who has a gift
> > for picking
> > out the documentation nits from other projects, it's a
> shame you don't
> > apply the same talent to your own...
> > but silly me as well: i tool the hard option and wasted
> my > time
> > engaging
> > with your very stupid little games.
> As said earlier, this is my last post, so there will be no
> need to respond to the above statements, not speaking about
> changing the evaluation of Betwixt (until real changes are
> made to address the issues).
as you have made clear in your FAQ your subjective rating are just that:
subjective. fine. all i care about is that you have several errors of
fact on your site which you refuse to correct (not just in betwixt but
also in some other summaries as well).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]