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

RE: Integration Models (WAS RE: parser models)

• To: 'Aaron Skonnard' <aarons@d...>, 'Paul Brown' <prb@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Integration Models (WAS RE: parser models)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:48:01 -0500

That it confuses them is not too surprising.  Abstract 
to concrete didn't work too well in music theory either 
where, for historical reasons, they taught counterpoint 
before teaching harmony (when composing, it is a lot 
easier to go from a chord progression to a contrapuntal 
derivation than the opposite, but historically, music 
emerged from single lines, so...).  Still the dilemma 
is to keep their fickle fingers off the keyboards of 
implementation fate until they understand their options. 

I like those examples, Aaron.  Good job as usual.  
I think getting people to accept a document model 
may be the critical piece.  (no duh!)

It seems one shouldn't dive too deep into the syntax 
without acquainting them with the infoset and at least 
saying:  "XML Is Syntax.  Full Stop.  XML Frameworks 
are something different.  Don't get too settled into 
your convictions until you see my provider examples.", 
and then give them the overview.  Then the 
"Just show me the code" mentality can be made to 
work to the instructor's advantage because they 
see the code and realize that syntax is not being 
emphasized and that they need to adjust their paradigm.

I'm seeing the other side of the damage where folks 
are refusing to let go of old technology because they 
can't see the advantage of slightlyStrongerASCIIFiles 
and that is as deep as they get before they make 
up their minds.

len


From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@d...]



Len wrote:

...
> Is there a confusion between loose coupling
> as an API/data model and loose coupling as file
> types on the wire?  While both are viable, I
> wonder if we would have the same confusion if
> the InfoSet were taught before the syntax.

It's interesting you say that. Back when we first started teaching our
first XML courses at DevelopMentor, we started with the Infoset as the
foundation followed by serialization at a later point. We found that the
approach actually confused more developers than it helped and generally
got the course off to a bumpy start. Since then, we've applied the
"start concrete, move abstract" approach, which seems much easier for
developers to grok. This seems true for most technologies, actually, not
just XML.

What really seems to help developers appreciate the difference between
these coupling models are good examples of "XML providers" where there
are no angle brackets involved. I've written several in .NET that expose
the file system, registry, zip files, dlls/exes, etc, as logical XML
documents. Then you can write XPath expressions that looks like this:

/mycomputer/c/temp//samples/book.zip/chapter1.doc

/mycomputer/c/invoices/invoice.xml[sum(//price)>1000]/@ID

Obviously, these XML providers not only give you XPath and XSLT
integration but also integration with .NET's DOM implementation.

Along these same lines, the built-in SQL Server 2000 XPath integration
is another great example that illustrates the concept.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Integration Models (WAS RE: parser models)
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Next by Date: Late Breaking News Proposal Deadline for XML 2002 --- Tuesday, October 1!
• Previous by thread: RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Next by thread: RE: Integration Models (WAS RE: parser models)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread