• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Must databinding imply tight coupling? (was Re: New tool for handling XML in Java)
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:47:35 +0000
• In-reply-to: <oprkjbuid4ezizxn@s...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213121839.03083488@m...> <oprkjbuid4ezizxn@s...>

On Thursday 13 February 2003 13:31, Mike Champion wrote:

> The downside to conventional databinding is basically Permathread #x (hmm,
> we really ought to catalog them)

Right! That's it!

http://www.alaric-snell.com/xml-dev-threads.html#schema-coupling

The prose in there is just a quickly-written summary of how I see the debate.

If proponents of either side would like to send me better-explained versions 
of their case, and likewise for other permathreads, I'll put them in there 
and attribute them, or link to articles on your blogs or whatever if you'd 
rather that.

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• References:
  • Re: New tool for handling XML in Java
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Must databinding imply tight coupling? (was Re: New tool for handlingXML in Java)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: New XML tool for improving data-processing performance
• Next by Date: Re: Must databinding imply tight coupling? (was Re: New tool for handlingXML in Java)
• Previous by thread: Must databinding imply tight coupling? (was Re: New tool for handlingXML in Java)
• Next by thread: Re: Must databinding imply tight coupling? (was Re: New tool for handlingXML in Java)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread