[xsd-users] generic framework vs. XML functions

[Boris Kolpackov]

Hi Ray,

Ray Lischner <rlischner at proteus-technologies.com> writes:

> One solution is to generate a class for each root element instead
> of or in addition to the global functions. The class would have
> members to provide the root element name and namespace.

I don't see how this will help you. I thought you wanted your
function to take an object of some generated type and automatically
figure out what element name and namespace to serialize it with.
With this approach, the user will still need to pass the element
name and namespace explicitly. The only advantage of this approach
is that the user does not have to spell the name and namespace
explicitly (which is an improvement but still no cigar).


> The functor class could have overloaded operators for all the
> currently global functions. Automatically define an instance of
> the class with the element name, and you would have a solution
> that is nearly source-level compatible with existing code, and
> provides the necessary information for anyone who needs the
> element name and namespace programmatically.

This is clever but won't be necessary - in the next version (3.0.0),
we are going to break backwards compatibility anyway so if something
is a clear improvement we can do it in a straightforward way.


thanks,
-boris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://codesynthesis.com/pipermail/xsd-users/attachments/20070322/1e57ecdf/attachment.pgp