OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] InnerXml is like printf (WAS: Underwhelmed)

[ 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.




News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS