[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Not the state of the object, the design of the object,
so I should have said 'class'.
I take your point, though. An object is a type. Stay
in that realm, and we agree. On the other hand, there
are those messy methods and the fact that a framework
is not one class, but lots of them, 'namespaces' seems
to be what Visual Studio.Net calls them.
Nice tool, btw. I'm enjoying it. This is one of the
best IDEs from MS that I've worked with for ease,
intelligence, just-enough-assistance, decent if baroque
help, and so on.
There are times I want to say namespace = type. ;-)
len
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
What do you mean by "schemas corresponding to object frameworks"? If you
mean schemas generated from classes in an OO language they definitely would
be much simpler than schemas designed for validating document-centric XML by
humans. A serialized object state is basically a complex type containing a
sequence of simple types and/or nested complex types of the same form. All
you need is DTDs + simple types (e.g. Microsoft's XDR) and you'd have hit
the 80% of the usage requirements for generating schemas from classes.
The complexity in XSD-based object<->XML frameworks (which has caused much
consternation in the XML Web Services world) is the fact that one has to map
the additional complexity of XML schema to OO constructs when no such
concepts exist in the OO world.
|
