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

RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX Filters forNamespacePro

• From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• To: 'Michael Brennan ' <Michael_Brennan@a...>,''Elliotte Rusty Harold' ' <elharo@m...>,'Xml-Dev ' <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:20:09 +0200

As I've seen during JavaOne 2001, people a fond of data binding because it
solves a very basic problem : you can't safely write business processes
involving business logic that directly manipulates XML document with the
current Java, C or C++ APIs. So, when you get an XML document representing
business data, it's better to bind it to an object model, process the object
model, then serialize the result back to XML.

Give people a schema language that enables them to define XML datatypes as
easily as they used to define C structs or Java or C++ classes, and a
language in which you can easily use XPath expression as rvalues or lvalues,
while being constrained by the schema, and voilà - no more binding is
required. The document *IS* the data.

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Michael Brennan
A: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; Xml-Dev
Date: 22/08/01 22:42
Objet: RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX Filters
forNamespaceProcessing)

> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]

<snip/>

> And witness all the people using these products NOT. I 
> classify this stuff along with tree-based XML editors and 
> binary variants of XML as something that gets reinvented 
> several times a month without any actual market demand. 

I don't think I'd agree that there is no market demand for data-binding
tools. I think the complexity of XML Schema -- and the consequent
complexity
of tools that rely upon it -- is inhibiting more widespread adoption.

> On the other hand, over the last three years as I've taught 
> developers about DTDs, almost invariably the first question 
> is "How do I say that an element contains an int?" and the 
> second question is usually ""How do I say that an element 
> contains a year since 1969?" or some variant thereof. 

In other words, people want data-binding, but they want it to be simple.

And it's really not clear to me why a language intended to just support
XML
validation needs to layer such concepts as types and inheritance on top
of
XML -- unless it is really intended to support data-binding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX Filters forNamespaceProcessing)
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Will the same happen to web services ?
• Next by Date: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX FiltersforNamespaceProcessing)
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX Filters forNamespaceProcessing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread