Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > XSLT's approach of allowing extensions (cheating) on a small > > and targetted application domain seems to be pretty acceptable--it > > forces you to use a different tool to solve the problems which (the > > kinds of FP used in) XSLT is not great at. > > This is consistent with the model used by several database > vendors -- allow > Java extensions for adding types, behavior, and new SQL functions. I think the model used by databases to extend functionality for comparison purposes could be standard ANSI SQL UDFs. Most vendors I know support UDFs, and vendors such as IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft allow various ways to extend functionality in a variety of languages, including C++ and Java at a minimum (for the vendors listed above), all as part of UDFs. On the other hand, database vendors use UDFs to allow functional extensions to SQL, which is more of a declarative language. XSLT could be considered a functional language, so would support a different class of extensions. Do I read an implied disapproval for extensions in the above assertion that XSLT extensions seem to be OK? In other words, do you feel that allowing extensions is usually a bad thing? I'm really just asking out of curiosity -- what sorts of situations do you think are good for extensions, and especially where do you think extensions are a bad idea? Cheers, Joshua Allen Microsoft eBusiness West Region "No challenge can withstand the assault of sustained thinking" - Voltaire *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
|
