That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Alex.
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> Alex Fernández wrote:
>
> > I cannot understand why there can be no DTD. Yes, the contents may be variable and
> > extensible, but that's what XML is -- eXtensible.
> >
> > At least for closed versions, it should be possible to define the grammar used
> > therein; otherwise what is the advantage of using XML? Since my experience with it
> > is very limited, I'm probably missing something important here.
> >
>
> Try to write the DTD entry for a <RequestInterceptor> element (Tomcat 3.2) or a
> <Valve> element (Tomcat 4.0) and you will see what I mean. In either case, the Java
> class that gets instantiated can be *anything*, with any set of JavaBeans properties.
> The initialization logic uses Java reflection to match up XML attributes to JavaBeans
> property names at runtime, in the same way that the following JSP statement works:
>
> <jsp:setProperty name="beanname" property="*"/>
>
> Since the set of all possible meaningful property names is infinite, it *cannot* be
> enumerated in a DTD, which requires you to list *all* valid attributes of every
> element.
>
> NOTE: we still get tremendous advantages from using XML for the configuration files
> -- but being able to parse against a DTD is not one of them. We're relying only on
> "well-formed" XML, rather than "validated" XML, for the server.xml file.
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Alex.
> >
>
> Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
