Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1480Re: [xml-dbms] Mapping List SimpleType

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Bourret
    Oct 2, 2001
      I think you make some good points. (Well-written rants are fun, too. :)

      I agree that generalized APIs are a good idea, as long as you don't lose
      track of the problem you are trying to solve. In this case, the problem
      is formatting and I think the proposed solution meets the requirements
      of being general.

      (Nobody has ever asked for triggers, so it is a very, very low priority.
      Two other reasons for not supporting triggers are lack of manpower and
      the fact that I try to avoid adding things to XML-DBMS that exist
      somewhere else. Since databases already have triggers, I see no reason
      to add them to XML-DBMS.)

      -- Ron

      Tod Harter wrote:
      >
      > On the other hand Ron, it is better to have one orthogonal "trigger
      > interface" than it is to create a formatting API and ANOTHER non-orthogonal
      > set of API's to solve all the problems that a generalized trigger API could
      > solve. I'm not saying this is absolutely the way to go, but if there is
      > significant functionality related to the problem domain your software is
      > meant to address which is so commonly required by applications that large
      > numbers of people are constantly reimplementing it or working around its
      > lack, then it should be a legitimate candidate area for API extension.
      >
      > Now, maybe its deemed that this sort of thing is best left to some other
      > library which is even MORE generalized and solves problems in domains not
      > directly addressed by XMLtoDBMS in which case you might simply contribute
      > input to some group that wants to develop it based on your needs.
      >
      > It may also be that its an area that should be addressed but the resources
      > aren't now (or perhaps ever) available to tackle it, or that its very much
      > lower priority than something else. In that case it would be nice to just not
      > make too many assumptions in the API you DO have, so that in the future
      > people can generalize it.
      >
      > This is one of the things I like best about perl as opposed to languages like
      > Java. Take the libwww interfaces (LWP), which provide both VERY simple
      > interfaces for casual use, and yet if you want to do something complex there
      > are portions of the API available for that too. Guess that was a rant, but
      > having spent the last couple months implementing XML processing systems in
      > perl I guess Java becomes less and less appealing...
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic