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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principlesof ...

Doesn't the JAXB model make sense here: push the typing inference to a 
mapping process that has type awareness in the host language?  Different 
host languages will have different type systems: you wouldn't want to 
build those into the interchange layer.  JSON can do that because it is 
a *javascript* object notation.  I don't think MicroXML should be a 
*Java* object notation.


On 07/16/2012 12:46 PM, David Lee wrote:
>> John Sayeth
>> Well, in MicroLark you can implement an ElementFactory and pass it to the
>> parser, and the parser will use the factory to create element objects
>> (which must be instances of a subclass of Element).  The factory gets
>> access to the new element's name and the current element stack including
>> attributes.  This is somewhat richer than XML Schema, which requires
>> that the  of an element be determinable using the new element's name
>> and the names of the elements in the current stack.
>> Of course, one could write an ElementFactory that uses a configuration
>> file of some sort; it doesn't have to be hard-coded logic.
> OK ...
> but what I am getting at, is if we want a *simpler* XML DataBinding this isnt simple enough IMHO.
> Full Stack XML already has data binding to native language objects.
> What I am reading here is not really data binding but rather a DOM-like structure where MicroXML gets turned into Elements ...
> Which is fine ... but if we want to compete against Simple Data Binding (a worthwhile goal IMHO)
> Then the resultant objects should be something a user would like to use, not the XML model mapped to an XML Model in memory.
> Something very much like what JSON can do to JavaScript objects,
> or JAXB can do to Java Objects.
> Hence Suggesting that we have some kind of data typing as part of the spec, either explicit or implicit.
> XMLRPC is one example of an in-band XML Typing.
> If we could use xsi:type or something similar that would help, although we still "suffer" that maps can only have string values.
> ----------------------------------------
> David A. Lee
> dlee@calldei.com
> http://www.xmlsh.org
> _______________________________________________________________________
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS