Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Mike Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> FWIW, I learned a "code review antipattern" long ago: "If a variable or
> function has 'thing' or 'stuff' in its label, it's a strong indication that
> the author doesn't know what exactly it is or is supposed to do." This
> thread is making me think that 'resource' should be added to that list :-)
For XML developers, is "resource" really an interesting thing to be discussing?
(I vote "no" pronounced "ZZZZZZ".) We come to the party with the absolute
operational distinction between parseable and unparseable entities. For us as
implementers, every general architecture resolves into entities with the question
"Can I parse it (or is it jut a name?)" as the primary thing we need to know to
get a job done.
Just as a SQL programmer strictly does not need to know which methodology was
used to create the data definitions, an XML developer strictly should not need to
know which architectural principles were used by an information providers. Indeed,
perhaps any architecture which forces an XML programmer to be think outside
the parseable/unparseable box could be considered badly layered.