[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: building an object model of a XML schema
- From: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:29:57 -0700
> "markup is not
Whoa there, cowboy!
In no way did I intend suggest that we write actual programs in this stuff.
If I say 'hash map' to a C++ or Java programmer, they understand what I mean
although their implementations might differ. If I say "store these elements
in a hashmap (if you can), here's the key" in a schema, then I haven't
programmed a thing. The XML data model would say "hash map? what the heck is
that? I'll ignore it." The C++ model would say "Oh, I getcha... I have just
Right now, that information is missing from XML Schema, and various code
generation implementations have their own unique ways of adding the
information. As it should be? I hope not.
Commit to a language? Yep, but an abstract language. It's like committing to
UML, but simpler (well, you say not, but how can it not be? It's a simpler
domain). No methods, just well-known 'archetypes'. Just as I don't know how
an XML Schema double is mapped to a specific language, I wouldn't know how
the archetype got implemented, or even what API the implentation was. It is
a performance definition, if you will. Defined, not directed.