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

Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)

• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:21:54 +1100
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1104968611.4359.315.camel@borgia>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206A78@h...> <1104968611.4359.315.camel@borgia>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

actually i find this thread very productive, but perhaps indirectly. you 
see what we have is lots of angle brackets (and my own markup that 
predates html by a good 5 years and xml by 15? years) and like many 
others on the list the challenge is not to create these things, but to 
do things with them... reliably.

questions like how strong should typing be and why? what happens when 
all these losely coupled systems start communicating? how stable are the 
systems and why?

most of my views have been expressed before, but these threads are 
invaluable as a practitioner  trying  to understand and manage what 
happens when i start using xml for at least some of it's intended uses.

it's a complex world and for xml to do what rpc's promised (or sgml etc) 
but never quite gave, these subjects have to be faced head on.

the last paper referenced by len is interesting in it's assertion that 
(to paraphrase) "the sum is greater than the whole". my preferred 
simplification. the implication is that as we build these large systems 
(using xml :) ) we may end up with something more than we planned for 
and we don't yet have the analytical tools to work out what we have and 
why (there's almost a corollary here that says in these highly 
interactive systems you cannot model them! )

keep the threads going. i for one am writing better code and better xml 
as a result. one can only hope the extra knowledge is helping us all do 
the same.

rick


Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 17:28 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes.  Now we are getting into an interesting area 
>>of networks:  free traders and structuralists. 
>>Walter Perry's POV is the perfect free trader POV. 
>>Schemas like GJXDM represent the structuralist POV. 
>>Structuralists want control.   Free traders want 
>>opportunity.   
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry, Len, but I think this thread ceased making sense to me about 3 of
>your posts ago.  Ducks?  (I know of "duck typing" as an argument *in
>favor* of dynamicism, and Google corroborates that impression), Beats?
>Markov?
>
>Whatever.  I'm done with this unproductive thread.  I suspect that as
>Vladimir points out, a bunch of Java programmers and a Python programmer
>are never likely to agree on the topic of typing.  Heck, back in my many
>days as a C++ programmer I would have disagreed with post-1996 Uche.
>
>If someone starts actually discussing code or angle brackets again,
>maybe I'll regain some interest, but for now, I have code *and* angle
>brackets to write (tons of 'em).  In my case, real work *is* more fun.
>
>
>  
>

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• References:
  • RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
• Next by Date: RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
• Previous by thread: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Next by thread: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread