[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:22:50 -0600
Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> > "Box, Don" wrote:
> >
> > Right. The SOAP approach is similar in spirit to the SML approach
> > - that is, if your goal is to use XML as a serialziation format
> > for your application's types, Section 8 defines a uniform method
> > for translating standard programming language constructs (e.g.,
> > struct, class, array) into XML and XML Schema. This method is
> > largely a formalization of element-normal-form encoding (which is
> > a/the core concept in SML).
>
> Hm, if I read the specs right, something looking more or less like
> object serialization is described in "8.4.1.1. Generic Records".
>
> Wouldn't it be more appropiate to have an own section for object
> serialization (e.g. 8.4.1.2)? The "generic record" serialization
> makes it uneccesarily difficult for objects to serialize
> themselves completely: The object description is broken into
> the type attribute of the property element and the object
> content itself. Couln't objects just always be serialized
> like in the array case?
How do you mean "like in the array case"?
For reference, using the 8.4.1.1 generic record serialization to
serialize objects seems natural to me.
-- Ken
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
