Re: XObjects

Graham Moore (graham.moore@dpsl.co.uk)
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 8:22:09 +0000


1) Using a PI means that the XML is no longer nuetral=2E I think this is ba=
d=2E=20
I want to be able to send an XML transaction to two different places where=20
the places know the binding they want to associate=2E I dont want the XML=20
telling them=2E

2) Having a root object that knows how to build its children and its=20
children know how to build there children etc seems redundant as the data=20
structures are self describing=2E I think the reason this is all so excitin=
g=20
is that we have the ability to move away from this constrained object=20
instantiation model to a more dynamic one=2E

We can build generic data objects and add in functionality=2E A generic dat=
a=20
object can be used because the data is self describing=2E The generic data=20
object removes the need for every class to know how to build its children=2E=
=20
We already see the generic way a DOM - with no functionality is built=2E It=
=20
only requires a small extension to build a functional DOM in a generic=20
fashion=2E

Bill wrote

> document + bindings + classes =3D application-specific agent

I agree with :

document + bindings + classes =3D

I'm not sure we should limit it to agents though=2E Agents are one=20
application=2E

> This approach precludes many things=2E It is not generic to
> XML processing=2E

I dont see this as XML processing=2E I see XML as being a standard way of=20
representing serialised objects=2E The fact that they are open and self=20
describing allow dynamic binding of functionality=2E Once the objects are=20
built they are just objects and are used with the rest of the application=2E