Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Sure. Systems that have legacy schemas have to do this all the time. We're back to structuralists vs free traders. www.tdan.com/i030hy01.htm Note the use of mappings to create the 'understanding'. A pattern/phenotype/form IS a map. Your question is not one of possibility, but degree. How much energy/time can you devote to the mapping process itself? Put another way, is this a discovery process? If the performance metric is overconstrained, this will fail. If it can be relaxed, discovery is affordable. len From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@m...] >I assume that this question has as its impetus ... Here's my motivation for the question: in a large, complex Enterprise you may know the kinds of "things" that need to be moved around (e.g., Book, BookCover, etc) but you don't have a-priori knowledge of the specific transactions that will be needed. So, is it feasible to simply declare a bunch of components (that everyone understands), which may be dynamically assembled by one system and shipped to another system where the assembly is dynamically understood. /Roger ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
