Re: XML DOM Binding for Ada 95 - matter of style

[Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>]

"Denny Vrandecic" <nodix@tiscali.de> writes:

> Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> > > On the one hand, the W3C published IDLs in their standards, and I may
> >> choose
> >>[snip]
> Martin Dowie answered
> > How about providing both? One as a wrapper to the other.
> 
> Simply put: double work, same pay.

Well, same pay for you in the short run (one thesis), but significant
gain for both you and the community in the long run.

> There is no easy way of wrapping one around the other, especially
> Exception Handling is a rather tricky issue that differs
> tremendously between the IDL- and the Ada-way. To avoid double work
> and still write the one binding that is most useful for the
> Ada-Community I ask here for your opinion and advice.

You should start with a thin binding (the IDL way). That will allow
easy upgrade to any future versions of the DOM spec. 

Then anyone who wants to use it will write a partial thick binding
(the Ada way). Eventually, all those people will get together and
write a common thick binding.

-- 
-- Stephe