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

RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its

• To: "Nicolas LEHUEN" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:23:12 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <575CBD83AE7DD411A23500B0D049C2F9C07703@SRVSOCRATE>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...]
> Sent: 07 March 2002 09:18
> To: 'Dare Obasanjo'; 'Thomas B. Passin'; 'xml-dev@l...'
> Subject: RE:  Stupid Question (was RE:  XML doesn't
> deserve its "X".)
> ...
> 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.

Cheers,

L.

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: What happened to WAP
• Next by Date: RE: What happened to WAP
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread