From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9629eba26884d78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-31 03:57:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: XML DOM Binding for Ada 95 - matter of style Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:57:33 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3F28F61D.4050504@noplace.com> References: <3f27bab4$1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bd.68 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 Jul 2003 10:57:37 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41070 Date: 2003-07-31T10:57:37+00:00 List-Id: Another argument against that notion is that you then have yet another proliferation of a different "standard". I'm looking at Trudy Levine's column in the most recent Ada Letters and noticing the wide proliferation of possible container libraries out there and I'm sure this is not a comprehensive list mentioning every one that is publically available. (Not to mention all those sitting in private libraries that were home grown but not distributed.) Do we really need to see yet more variations of a library where the fundamental purpose and functionality has not changed? My opinion is this: The XML standard for document content is the only real compatibility one needs to maintain. The interface to access it ought to be treated more as a "suggestion" with what is natural for the language of implementation being the deciding factor. Don't be different just for the sake of being different - keep names of things similar/recognizable and provide mostly the same operations, etc. - but do it in a way that makes sense for Ada. BTW: I never really liked the XMLAda approach of using discriminated records and thought it should have been built in a more Object Oriented way using tagged records. (Thus giving fuel to the C++/Java critics of Ada where they can observe that given an object oriented design, Ada apparently can't implement it in an object oriented way with inheritance, etc.) It would be a good thing to look to fix in any enhanced interface to the XML-DOM. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > > Well, same pay for you in the short run (one thesis), but significant > gain for both you and the community in the long run. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================