I guess I don't really understand what you mean by internal and external XML. My immediate reaction is to say XML is XML, if it is well formed then there are a standard set of APIs for getting at the elements and attributes. You'll have to use those APIs to decipher the model and you should have a DTD or schema to describe the model and facilitate that.
If you want application logic bound up in your model (code behind model) then you might do better to have a client domain model which reflects what you are trying to do with the data and a layer in your architecture which transforms the XML model from the form that has already been defined into something more suited to your display needs. Maybe you should research MVC design pattern. Alternatively use a factory pattern and have all your procedural code in static functions which operate on the model. Both approaches are sound architecturally. If you go the route of a separate domain model remember that you'll probably need a 2-way mapping, so make sure you consider both reading and writing when designing your model (it's easy to lose information if you only consider reading and then not be able to reconstitute the orginial model when you come to write). Depending on whether you have any control over your server architecture you can decide whether you do the transformation on the server or the client. Each route has its own merits. --- In [email protected], "missgiggygirl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you Simon for the overview. :) > > The XML is done by someone else, and is already done, so that is not > an issue. > > I know I have to use the XML object to use the incoming XML, but I > really haven't seen much (if any) code that shows how to do this with > external XML. I have seen a lot of code that binds internal XML lists > to elements, however. Maybe I am using the wrong search terms or am > somehow glancing over stuff I could be using. > > Another issue is I want to use a code behind model, and again I don't > see a lot of stuff using this method. > > Thanks again for your response, > Miss Giggy >
