Back to XObjects was XLink - where a

[David Brownell]

Graham Moore wrote:
> 
> > That doesn't seem sufficient to me.  ...
> 
> Its completely insufficient. But it is a base level ...

Right; many folk have reinvented that level!  Nobody, I think, denies
that the _model_ is accepted.  What I'm saying is that now that's been
agreed, it's time to provide a framework for answering questions such
as the ones I posed.

 
> The model I have working uses XML config files to specfiy the binding and
> allows the specification of more powerful delegation structures than simply
> inheriting from the w3c.node.

I've got an API driven approach, which could be driven based on config
files using an XML syntax like the one I suggested a while back.  But
the API can also be driven in other ways, too.  ("Element Factory", an
interface that can be implemented in many ways.  I'll post more later.)

Some delegation support is needed, I'd agree.  Everyone seems to focus
on subclassing though (implying a standard DOM implementation, not just
interface).  I suppose at some level these differ only slightly:

	MyXObject	foo = (MyXObject) node;
	MyXObject	bar = (MyXObject) node.getUserObject ();

The main differences I see are that (a) "bar" (delegation) costs more in
terms of memory, and (b) "bar" won't naturally have the entire DOM tree
as context, without establishing some bidirectional linking policy much
like the parent/child one that DOM exposed only partially.  Also, (c) there
is no real likelihood of eliminating large chunks of the DOM tree without
letting the XObjects ("XML Beans") replace implementations of DOM methods.

- Dave

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;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)