On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 12:29:30PM +1200, Michael Koziarski wrote: > Depends on what your requirements are. If you want a 'schema > language' to help non-rails clients, why not use one that's been > widely tested and has support in many different languages. Making up > something specific for rails would mean it's of questionable value to > non-rails programming environments.
Along these lines, I've been investigating generating a W3C XML Schema from a model and found it delightfully easy with just a bit of reflection on AR::Base::columns. Throw in a .xsd format and you've got a great place to serve your schema. One of the things I noticed was how similar the standard types for an XML Schema were to the types used by #to_xml. With just a few very slight changes, Rails can be using a standardized list of types instead of inventing its own. I've refactored part of Hash::from_xml and in the process, added support for the parsing end of things for these types. This also fixes a few issues as noted in the ticket I submitted it with. It goes without saying tests are included. If there's interest, I can fix up the generating part (the various #to_xml's) as well. http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/8047 > I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of generating a particular schema > language, or even of generating a schema at all, but I do know that > inventing our own is something we should be very wary of. I agree, most of this is destined for plugin land at most. But I think reusing the types in the core is a Good Thing. Cheers, Tim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
