Access Languages are Tied to Schemas
jlapp at acm.org
Thu Nov 20 22:44:59 GMT 1997
Mark Baker <markb at iosphere.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Joe Lapp wrote:
>> When we evaluate the capabilities of SGML/XML to support object models,
>> I think we need to take client behavior into account. The repository is
>> acting more like a file system for the state information of objects, and
>> the clients are more like applications that use the file system.
>No, I think that's what we should be trying to stay away from.
>Any object I have can be entirely serialized into an XML document and
>back again without information loss. The XML document *is* the object.
>All I need is a framework to transparently activate documents. Or in
>other words, reserialize it from XML into RAM.
I think we are in agreement (I disagree, we agree). An XML document is
capable of representing any object and all aspects of that object. But
an XML document isn't the object it represents. You have to deserialize
that document back into an object before you have the fully featured
object again. An XML repository could store those objects (in their
XML document representation) and even keep the relationships among those
objects, but it does not animate those objects. The objects are alive
when they are deserialized on the clients. To get a repository to
animate the objects you'd have to make the repository a bit more than
just a repository. For one thing, you'd also need a JVM.
>My Javasoft proposal mentions Beans specifically, but for those of you not
>familiar with Beans, *every* Java object is automatically a Bean in JDK
>1.1. So, my proposal to Javasoft isn't a niche idea - it's meant to
>apply to all objects.
Oh, I fully agree here, too. Actually, I was thinking of your proposal
to JavaSoft when I wrote that previous post. I intended to mention that
XML repositories could serve as databases for serialized Java objects.
Your idea to use XML to represent serialized Java objects is intriguing.
As a side note, you mention that in JDK 1.1 every object is a bean. I
thought beans had to be serializable. Are you saying that in JDK 1.1
every Java object that ever gets created is serializable?
Joe Lapp (Java Apps Developer/Consultant)
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org
jlapp at acm.org
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev