Hi, This really belongs in something like a osoa.org sdo design spec discussion, but it's not up yet, so I hope it's ok to post here.
As I'm fine tuning the LDAP DAS Design Guide I find myself saying this alot: "an SDO Type that is the semantic equivalent of an XSD Complex Type" If I were discussing EMF and XSD I would just say "EClass". Just seems like SDO would map a lot cleaner to other typing systems if it included the semantics of Complex and Simple types. Seems like it makes the API more efficient too, since it becomes natural to keep simple and complex types in separate lists. I'm guessing that doing this upfront within the core SDO API would make most products derived from the SDO API more efficient since developers would become accustomed to dealing with the distinction. Anyways - just my two cents. I figured I'd throw it out there for general awareness in case others were interested. Cheers, - Ole --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
