• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:59:19 -0500
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJMEDKHFAA.ldodds@i...>

[Leigh Dodds]

> > 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.

Is there a role for the "Demeter" method here?

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDDL and XSLT
• Next by Date: Re: help in processing compositor's in XML Schema?
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread