RE: [xml-dev] constructive (was RE: [xml-dev] Markup perspective not code)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

Converting XML to an object hierarchy? Isn't this what Castor does for Java objects and .NET XML Serialization does for CLR objects? There was a recent article on XML.com that provides can act an introduction to XML data binding if you are unaware of this technology 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com] 
	Sent: Sun 8/4/2002 5:39 AM 
	To: 'Simon St.Laurent'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [xml-dev] constructive (was RE: [xml-dev] Markup perspective not code)
	
	

	Hi Simon,
	
	Simon said:
	And that's _all_ that XML should solve.  Piling the other 80% of the
	work
	into XML is precisely what brought us to the unspeakable mess we have
	today, whoever's incredible fault it may be.
	
	Didier replies:
	This is a point of view. A second one would be to say that if we get
	that mess is because there is:
	a) A lack of reasonable solutions for the problem to be solved
	b) a lack of tools. The actual tools are too low level and necessitate
	more work than a classical way of doing things. Progress and
	productivity is not more work, it should be less work.
	c) We are not really listening to the needs of the developers and the
	constraints they are facing.
	
	If, for example, a tool where to be added to some dynamic binding
	languages like ECMAscript or Java and that an XML document where to be
	presented as a hierarchy of object, not the syntaxic ones but the
	objects represented by the elements, we would probably have more buyers
	of this solution and probably less Microsoft stuff. Actually, to perform
	the following operation:
	Account.balance = account.balance + transaction.amount a developer would
	have to parse the XML document then move the values in variables, etc. A
	lot of stuff not useful to the the problem to be resolve and a counter
	productive practice. This is more than they have to do today. So why do
	we expect that they will follow such path? Do we take the longest route
	ourselves? If yes we are maybe a community of strange beings :-) if no,
	why do we ask the others to do so? However, if instead of that type of
	solution we where to propose that XML documents are transformed into an
	infoset and that this info set can be accessible both a the syntaxic
	level and the semantic level, they would buy that. The gain is that
	instead of having an RPC we would have a significant document.
	
	I think that what Jon Bosak is doing right now is a good way to improve
	the situation if that is not too late. Defining business transactions as
	XML document is a good thing. Instead of having a SOAP call I may get an
	invoice encoded as an XML document. The latter is potentially richer
	than the former in terms of information. Now, if this invoice can be
	processed easily with tools that do not ask the developers to go back in
	time, this may take off. All my wishes to Jon efforts.
	
	You know its easy to say, they are wrong when in fact we (and mostly the
	W3 organization) created the situation. Its probably time to take some
	responsibility of the consequences of the XML community actions and ways
	of thinking. I know its not popular to say that :-)
	
	Cheers
	Didier PH Martin
	
	
	
	
	
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
	initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
	
	The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
	
	To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
	manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>