RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...] > Sent: 07 March 2002 09:18 > To: 'Dare Obasanjo'; 'Thomas B. Passin'; 'xml-dev@l...' > Subject: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't > deserve its "X".) > ... > This kind of design is quite similar to AFs, in fact, but its OOP orientation make it > quite powerful (because polymorphism in data would be leveraged by polymorphism in code). This seems very close to AFs. In fact I think from a markup perspective the mechanisms you need are *exactly* AFs What I think you're adding is a XML serialization/mapping layer which is AF aware. So once you've processed your instance as a particular AF, you end up with application objects that conform to interfaces that inherit from one another. Sounds nice. The dynamic proxy stuff in Java ought to make this kind of thing straight-forward to right. Cheers, L.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format