1480Re: [xml-dbms] Mapping List SimpleType
- Oct 2, 2001I 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.)
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...
- << Previous post in topic