Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 09:44 PM 29/08/01 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >Either way doesn't change the point. If you have a script written >(using names not vapor-PSVI) >under the assumption that there are no local types (or, at least, >a known set of local types, the others being global, and the >local type not being a compatible restriction of the global type), then >introducing local types forces you to do some more programming >to fix it. It is not robust. Hmm, I'm not willing to go nearly as far as Rick. But he's done a good job of pointing out that overloading names in a single markup vocabulary does have a real cost, and one you should worry about (and I found it instructive that in the RDBMS world, ERWIN raises a flag on this). On the other hand, when I'm writing O-O software, when I pick variable and method names I don't worry very much about whether they clash with locals elsewhere. Hold, on that's not true: if you're building a class in Java, you'd better not have a toString() method that launches missiles :)... but it's certainly a different style of thinking. There's scope for a nice general essay here about the differences between ways of thinking about data; basic WF XML, OOP, and RDBMS represent instructively different thought patterns. PSVI and DTDs and SOAP and so on fit into this pattern in interesting ways. -Tim
|
