[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Hans, As one 'Nodeist' to another I have a different take on what is important. My vision is that when building systems the first option that is considered is a non-object-oriented one based largely on generic infrastructure. A system that is largely based on XML Technologies, but presented to users via appropriate interfaces so they can configure the infrastructure to their needs in a reasonably "fool-proof" manner.In this vision, XML is an highly flexible hierachical and *generic* data-structure (its SGML roots?), which allows it to be processed using generic tools, based on the Path and Event concepts, that are language independant essentially. To my mind these are two distinct approaches, each with particular strengths, but capable of co-existing and even complementing maybe (your take on it). I can think of three reasons that this data-driven infrastructure ('XML-ish') approach might be good: (1) Its likely to be significantly cheaper to implement, for the right kind of use. (2) Its likely to allow system users, rather than programmers, to take a more active role in putting it together and maintaining it. (3) It fits with the idea of data having a longer life than programs. As some evidence of the logic of this viewpoint, I take the existence of things like rules-engines and workflow design tools in the OO world, that, to my mind, are more appropriate to the data-driven infra-structure approach. Steve
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@y...> wrote:
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



