----- Original Message From: "Uche Ogbuji"
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Hans-Juergen Rennau
> <>wrote:
>
>> Michael Kay wrote:
>> "and they [namespaces] add myriad opportunities for doing things wrong."
>>
>> You forgot an item in your list: they offer a unique possibility to get
>> things right when things get really complicated.
>>
>> For example when you do what I presently do: integrate schema information
>> from 283 different schemas. Fortunately they use namespaces - 283 target
>> namespaces - which enables me to keep everything clean without relying on
>> document URIs and or any conventions, and without adding anything to
>> existing structures (like marker attributes). I admit that I miss a lot
>> of
>> fun which I might have if there were no such thing as a target namespace
>> (the shadow of namespaces).
>>
>
> I would start much, much further back and commiserate with you about
> having
> to integrate info from 238 different schemas. If I were dealing in an
> environment that broken I would start by fixing it in my local context.
> Pipelines much more effective in doing so than namespaces.
Why is this architecture necessarily broken? Loose architectural systems,
where clearly identified external dependencies are injected in and resolved
and dispatched via external configuration are likely to be much more
flexible than a system that has to be crafted with intimate knowledge of a
pipeline of how the data should be processed.
As others have said, we're not all solving the same problem.
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
