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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9629eba26884d78,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-30 04:32:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.tiscali.de!not-for-mail From: "DENNY VRANDECIC" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: XML DOM Binding for Ada 95 - matter of style Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:32:23 +0200 Organization: Tiscali Germany Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: p62.246.81.162.tisdip.tiscali.de X-Trace: ulysses.news.tiscali.de 1059564742 66115 62.246.81.162 (30 Jul 2003 11:32:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tiscali.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:32:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40995 Date: 2003-07-30T13:32:23+02:00 List-Id: Hello group, I am writing an XML DOM Binding for Ada 95 (as part of my master thesis) - not really the whole parser, just a binding to a parser that is more complete (i.e. implements more modules of the DOM Spec) than the otherwise great XmlAda by ACT. The binding will be given to the community for free under a BSD-like license. I'd love to write the binding in such a way, that later the user may easily switch to a native DOM Implementation (like a further developed XmlAda), which I'm sure will finally come. But for that I have to make one hard decision: which standard to follow? On the one hand, the W3C published IDLs in their standards, and I may choose just to stick close to these IDL-Specs. The result doesn't have an Ada-like feeling - the procedures names are written in one word, the exception handling is cumbersome, and more. But I follow the W3C standard closely, and that's a good thing, isn't it? And most of the interface could be created automatically. There would be less discussions on the details of this way, as their is a standard IDL describing the interface and a standard mapping of IDL to Ada 95. Everything is standard, everything is fine. On the other hand, I could adhere to the Ada style guide, and make the binding feel very Adaesque. Ada users would learn it easier, it would better fit in the program, the stylecheckers would appreciate it and much more. But with creating this interface I would probably have to make much more decisions, which could be questioned, and thus this way would harder lead to an accepted standard interface, thus making switching the implementation later harder. It's a Catch-22, so I'd love to draw on your experience. I will deliver a talk on Friday at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, about this, and discuss it with the people there to form a stronger opinion about it, and I would love to hear your opinion on it beforehand and afterwards. I like to make this decision with you, as eventually this binding is done for the community. Sorry for my bad english, I'm no native speaker. If you have further questions or comment, that or not of interest to many, you may also send them via eMail (denny_at_nodix.de). Thanks for your time, Denny Vrandecic Student of computer science, University Stuttgart