Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Arjun Ray wrote, > I personally believe it is a fundamental mistake to require that > taxonomic names be dealt with as strings. I could easily be wrong, > but I've seen too many horrors that can be traced back to precisely > that circumstance not to want compelling reasons to change my mind. There's some truth in this. But there's a cost (ie. building vocabulary specific APIs) which isn't always worth paying. Worse is better, remember ;-) > | FWIW, I don't think code generation is going to do a very good job > | without manual intervention, cp. JAXB's mapping schemas. > > Well, JAXB is mostly about interfaces, from what I can see - the work > of implementing those suckers is left as an um, exercise. I've been > using DTDs to generate classes. The only interfaces are for a common > generic package, which the programmer has access to if he *really* > wants. As I understood it, the primary motivation for JAXB mapping schemas was to allow arbitrary XML names to be converted to names which conform to Java naming conventions, ie. UGLY_CAPS -> uglyCaps or class -> cssClass. At least, that was the impression Mark Reinhold gave me. > This xpath stuff could fit into that package, I'm thinking... Hmm ... maybe. > But I still think string-based approaches ultimately [expletive deleted] ;-) Ultimately so do I: like I said at the outset, there's an element of devils advocate in this. But sucky or not, there seem to be some benefits here. Cheers, Miles
|
