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

RE: <ged.corba.Node>

• To: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>
• Subject: RE: <ged.corba.Node>
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:03:13 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I don't know if it was autotranslated, or someone 
thinks it's a good idea, but the folks who have 
to write XSLT for it hate it.  The point being that 
structurallly, there is no need to carry the names 
deeper into the tree.  Every piece of code after 
that translation carries the pain forward and 
once out into the world, it is almost impossible 
to fix.  Viral marketing and viral diseases have 
much in common.

Training outs.  OOPisms are not necessarily the best 
way to code markup.  Schools training CS grads should 
rethink some articles of faith.

len

From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...]

One place you see this is in automatic translations from code or IDL.  I had
to work with some xml that was automatically created from the java objects
created for CORBA messages, and they were pretty awful, about what you show.
The IDL developers rightly create readable element names according to
notions of naming conventions, but those names aren't intended to be
instantiated in the message instance.  It's not so easy to get good element
names from such IDL by machine.

• Prev by Date: Processing Model
• Next by Date: RE: Re: Pipelines : inside or outside the parser ? (was RE: Java Technology and XML : API benchmark)
• Previous by thread: Re: <ged.corba.Node>
• Next by thread: Rick Cattell, Don Chamberlin, Daniela Florescu, Jim Gray, Jim Melton to discuss future of software and databases (April 23, San Jose)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread