xml-dev - Re: Schema concepts

[THOMAS PASSIN <tpassin@idsonline.com>]

Jeff Lowery wrote:

<much eliding/>
> Since, in order to be useful, a schema must have methods for it's
elements,
> and those methods reside in an OOP application, is breaking the
type/element
> distinction really have any utility since all those elements and types
have
> to be mapped to a classic OOP hierarchy, anyway?
>
Well, a **processor** must have methods for the elements it's processing.
But another processor (or stylesheet) might have very different ones.
Example: using a rdbms I create a new view joining three tables.  I can do
this on the fly, even the view can be temporary.  This action was not a
method of any one table, nor of the view instance (even though I can imagine
a class called a viewFactory that would create the view) nor even of the
schema.

Using OOP to build an application does not automatically require that every
piece of the schema be an OOP object.  That might or might not be a useful
approach.  An XML document may be used in a large number of ways, requiring
different methods.  So I don't think that the WD is headed in the wrong
direction here.

Tom Passin


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************