Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> "markup is not > programming" Whoa there, cowboy! In no way did I intend suggest that we write actual programs in this stuff. If I say 'hash map' to a C++ or Java programmer, they understand what I mean although their implementations might differ. If I say "store these elements in a hashmap (if you can), here's the key" in a schema, then I haven't programmed a thing. The XML data model would say "hash map? what the heck is that? I'll ignore it." The C++ model would say "Oh, I getcha... I have just the thing." Right now, that information is missing from XML Schema, and various code generation implementations have their own unique ways of adding the information. As it should be? I hope not. Commit to a language? Yep, but an abstract language. It's like committing to UML, but simpler (well, you say not, but how can it not be? It's a simpler domain). No methods, just well-known 'archetypes'. Just as I don't know how an XML Schema double is mapped to a specific language, I wouldn't know how the archetype got implemented, or even what API the implentation was. It is a performance definition, if you will. Defined, not directed.
|
