[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray wrote,
> I personally believe it is a fundamental mistake to require that
> taxonomic names be dealt with as strings. I could easily be wrong,
> but I've seen too many horrors that can be traced back to precisely
> that circumstance not to want compelling reasons to change my mind.
There's some truth in this. But there's a cost (ie. building vocabulary
specific APIs) which isn't always worth paying. Worse is better,
remember ;-)
> | FWIW, I don't think code generation is going to do a very good job
> | without manual intervention, cp. JAXB's mapping schemas.
>
> Well, JAXB is mostly about interfaces, from what I can see - the work
> of implementing those suckers is left as an um, exercise. I've been
> using DTDs to generate classes. The only interfaces are for a common
> generic package, which the programmer has access to if he *really*
> wants.
As I understood it, the primary motivation for JAXB mapping schemas was
to allow arbitrary XML names to be converted to names which conform to
Java naming conventions, ie. UGLY_CAPS -> uglyCaps or class ->
cssClass. At least, that was the impression Mark Reinhold gave me.
> This xpath stuff could fit into that package, I'm thinking...
Hmm ... maybe.
> But I still think string-based approaches ultimately suck ;-)
Ultimately so do I: like I said at the outset, there's an element of
devils advocate in this. But sucky or not, there seem to be some
benefits here.
Cheers,
Miles
|
