[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- To: "'KenNorth'" <KenNorth@email.msn.com>, Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@geotempo.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:47:15 -0700
> > XSLT's approach of allowing extensions (cheating) on a small
> > and targetted application domain seems to be pretty acceptable--it
> > forces you to use a different tool to solve the problems which (the
> > kinds of FP used in) XSLT is not great at.
>
> This is consistent with the model used by several database
> vendors -- allow
> Java extensions for adding types, behavior, and new SQL functions.
I think the model used by databases to extend functionality
for comparison purposes could be standard ANSI SQL UDFs. Most vendors
I know support UDFs, and vendors such as IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft
allow various ways to extend functionality in a variety of languages,
including C++ and Java at a minimum (for the vendors listed above),
all as part of UDFs.
On the other hand, database vendors use UDFs to allow functional
extensions to SQL, which is more of a declarative language. XSLT
could be considered a functional language, so would support a different
class of extensions.
Do I read an implied disapproval for extensions in the above
assertion that XSLT extensions seem to be OK? In other words,
do you feel that allowing extensions is usually a bad thing?
I'm really just asking out of curiosity -- what sorts of situations
do you think are good for extensions, and especially where do
you think extensions are a bad idea?
Cheers,
Joshua Allen
Microsoft eBusiness West Region
"No challenge can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" - Voltaire
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
