----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Borden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:05 PM Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API
> Err, so "addResource" on a BinaryResource is OK _from an interface point of > view_ when "addResource" on an integer doesn't make sense? Do you really > mean this? Considering that a number of native XML databases store BLOBS including Tamino and eXcelon as well as the fact that a few XML-enabled databases support storing XML as blobs such as DB2 (XMLCLOB type) and Oracle (in regular CLOBs) I don't see why it should be unreasonable to expect an API that expects to be used by XML databases not to support storing binary resources. On the other hand expecting the database to expect to know how to manage floating point numbers and booleans is ludicrous in my opinion. > A collection/list/set of integers is a _perfectly_ reasonable and well > understood entity. Not for storing in a XML database. > What makes this different then a collection that expects a list of XML > documents each of which is valid to a particular schema, or a parent XML > element into which you attempt to insert a child element that would make the > XML invalid? Because those are *validation* problems as opposed to *type* problems. In both cases the database knows how to support the types but they happen to be invalid in the case of booleans and integers they are not the correct type to be handled by the database -- THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #59 I will never build a sentient computer smarter than I am. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
