• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:07:37 -0500

I don't find namespaces hard to understand; I find them 
hard to keep up with and if the application language 
has flags in it that change the rules, very hard.

So far in this thread, a significant number of the 
complaints about schemas turn out to be complaints 
about namespaces.  I am finding it reasonably 
straightforward given an IDE to create a schema. 
I haven't considered all the implications of namespaces 
in the design and I'm beginning to think I don't want 
to but know I can't avoid it if I want to modularize.

I see the "does too much" complaints but I side 
with Henry on this:  pick one feature to remove 
and see who picks up a short sword at the same time.

Maybe tangential, but why do relational theorists 
not have complaints with namespaces (shallow structure, 
aliasing in the queries)?   In other words, other 
than the flags, do the namespace/schema complaints 
relate to the OOPness or relational bent of the 
developer?  Are they easier or harder to use given 
the implementation bias?  For example, backward engineering 
a relational db, schemas are easy (so far).

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

• Prev by Date: RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by Date: [PATCH] Another update to DTD to XML Scheme tool
• Previous by thread: RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by thread: RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread