RE: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are
This maybe somewhat OT, but I need my little rant for the day: > Nobody's yet given a good reason why data encapsulation is bad. How 'bout: "Data model encapsulation is bad"? The problem is that current data encapsulation schemes coincidentally hide the underlying passive[?] (how about persisted?) data model. I think it's possible, however, to make a data model explicit while keeping it's data encapsulated. On the one hand, I like data binding technologies because they separate data model from process model, while keeping data encapsulated; on the other hand, you still get physical data model mismatches that are hard to reconcile satisfactorily. What would help (this is an old saw of mine) is if classes and there methods were loosely coupled to a schema and its data. This would make integrity checking on the data alone easier, because a lot of it can be declared, rather than coded. (I miss my old 4GL <sniff>.) It would also make model-to-model mapping quite a bit easier, since you're operating at a higher level of abstraction. In other words, the object data schema would not have to be explicit about implementation; it may say: these sets of value pairs have lookup capability on the first value of each pair; the implementor could decide which collection class to use to provide that capability. That schema information would also clue in the database developer to add an index on the appropriate column in the appropriate table. So, if we could encapsulate our data while still making our object data structures explicit, there would be a lot to gain in that particular separation of concerns.
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