Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Some more input:
[snip]
- Not sure if the modifying methods of XRDFNamedGraph are necessary (or
if they are only added to allow implementing XRDFRepository together
with an "alien" XRDFNamedGraph implementation; in which case some
private protocol between an XRDFRepository and the XRDFNamedGraph
objects it creates might be better)---but I am absolutely not a domain
expert with RDF.
if by "modifying methods" you mean addStatement, removeStatement, then
yes, those are the only methods that actually allow to change repository
contents :)
note that XRDFRepository and XNamedGraph implementations will be tightly
coupled and not interchangeable.
basically, XNamedGraph can be implemented as just the graph name and a
pointer to the underlying repository implementation.
note further that (hopefully) there is no method in either interface which
takes an object of the type as parameter :)
- I vaguely remember I had some reason to consider UNOIDL constants,
esp. "complex" ones like strings or (not even implemented) structs, as
not useful, but unfortunately cannot remember the reason any longer...
stdin(905) : Missing type or illegal syntax following CONST keyword: parse
error
umm, strings are also not allowed as constants? argh...
- Minor stylistic stuff:
-- XRDFURI vs. XRdfUri etc. (I personally prefer the latter, but the
former is also widely used).
-- If you are in module rdf, the "RDF" in exception, interface, and
service names might be unnecessary.
-Stephan
mfg,
michael
--
"I hate leaving Windows95 boxes publically accessible, so shifting
even to NT is a blessing in some ways. At least I can reboot them
remotely in a sane manner, rather than having to send them malformed
packets." -- http://bofhcam.org/journal/journal.html, 20/06/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
