[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XML class descriptor




Falko Braeutigam wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Steve Tinney wrote:
> > I think it would be more natural to have parameters given as a list of 
> > elements rather than an attribute whose value needs parsing.
> > 
> > The question of attributes vs. elements for data representation is always 
> > subject to some discussion, but my experience is that most of the time 
> > elements are superior, even if less compact.  You could use empty 
> > elements, as in:
> > 
> >  <xparameter type="java.lang.String"/>
> > 
> > to maintain some degree of compactness.
> Name and parameter are attributes of xmethod because they are just needed to
> identify the method. Their values cannot by changed. All customizable settings
> are elements. Does this make sense?

It does.  Are you sure, though, that nobody will ever want to, say, run this 
stuff through XSL for some reason?  Of course, one can parse a delimited 
string in XSL as well, so there's not much in it.

> > 
> > I'm not sure why use the x-names; <methods><method>...</method></methods>
> > seems fine to me.
> Problems in the Java code. The method element would be translated into Method
> class. Since we need reflection this would lead to name clashes.

Ahh, now I see.

 Steve