Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Adam Turoff wrote: >If I'm doing my math right, that leaves roughly 1% of XML users >actually *trying* to do something with XML Schema. From there: > We're using MSXML 4, .NET and XML Spy. I think the only really irritating problem I've had is that XML Spy doesn't detect ambiguous content models - this should be at least an option. In general I'd say that anyone who wants to do typed Web Services is likely to be doing XSD. That's going to be a lot more than 1% of users in the near to medium future, in my prediction. How are they going to do it? I've just experimentally dragged a database table onto a schema in VS.NET - the result's not perfect (got primary keys but can't see referential integrity) but it's a pretty good start. So that gives at least three options to those designing XML Schemas - [1] start by designing the schema, either textually or graphically [2] start by designing a programming language class, then auto-magically convert the class to a schema [3] start by auto-magically converting one or more tables to schemas, plus of course [4] start by getting a third-party schema and simply putting it through your toolkit An interesting point is that when the .NET utility xsd.exe (I imagine that there is or will shortly be a java equivalent) generates a schema-specific deserialiser, the generated code not only parses XML (or an XML event stream) blazingly fast, but also provides implicitly quite a lot of structure and data-type validation. Strangely my tests show the generated code de-serialising XML into objects faster than it serialises objects into XML - is this just me? Francis.
|
