[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Architectural Forms and XAF

  • From: "Wang,David" <dwang@m...>
  • To: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@t...>, <xml-dev@x...>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:16:29 -0500

af framework

>  ... AFs will be the rule, rather than the exception.  AFs are, quite
> simply, the object-oriented way of supporting reliable, vendor-neutral
> information interchange.
>[...]
> AFs are all about hijacking arbitrary models of interchangeable
> information, using such models in an unbounded number of contexts,
> specializing them in validatable ways, mixing them together in
> arbitrary ways, and supporting them via re-usable engines.

I do not understand - I do *not* see AFs as "object oriented" in the least.
It seems like a great "hack" enabled by hijacking DTDs.  The more I read
about it, the more convinced I became that AFs are indeed hacks.  All the
renaming attributes for the architecture name, attribute names, and
attribute values, along with a recommendation to turn auto-associate off by
default, point to a lack of a proper hierarchical namespace to avoid the
consistent need to rename things because everything eventually collides in a
flat namespace.  That said, I read a lot of responses which basically shot
down namespaces as unnecessarily complex.  Why?  I think the renaming one
has to do with AF is unnecessarily complex.  Agreed, namespaces alone don't
solve the problem - namespaces try to behave like mathematical partitions,
but as math profs claim "mathematics is not real-life!"

> I often urge people who are interested in learning more about AFs to
> read chapters 9-11 of David Megginson's excellent book:

I have, in fact, read David's excellent discussion on AFs in this book.
However, I fail to feel as optimistic about AFs as you; I'm wondering if
there's a key point that I'm missing.

> > The only reason why the AF framework wasn't used to do the job of
> > namespaces (and yes, we thought about it a lot) is that the syntax
> > for AF-ing attributes is ugly and complicated.

I agree (above).  I think AF's notions deserve a simpler syntax instead of
the convoluted way in which it twists around existing schema formalisms.

/David




***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.