As usual, we're in agreement. I should clarify that I would avoid writing or generating code that makes use of the XMAP API to process specific documents of any real complexity. That sort of code is just too rigorous and personally I don't think it belongs in the MV engine.
What I should have said is that I am thinking about generating mapping files, rather than using XML/DB. Yes, with my very limited undertanding of the XML extensions, I believe you're right if you're saying code that operates on mapping files can be hardcoded. If I do generate mapping files, I would also need to create the related data files and dict definitions. Well heck, rather than do this using U2-specific tools I'd much rather use something cross-platform, like Java or .NET, and avoid the nested relationships issues that Greg cites as well as a bunch of others that may be lurking within the U2-specific tools from IBM. I'll be making decisions very soon... Best, T > From:Symeon Breen > Just one point - where you say hard code - I am not > entirely in agreement - my xml handling code is > generic for all the xml file i suck into u2, the EXT > file is different for each xml file - it is in a way > an addendum to the xsd and allows you to only import > parts of the xml. If this is what you call hardcoding > then i disagree it is a configuration. If however you > are hardcoding your databasic for each xml file then > yes that is hardcoding and i agree you should not do > it that way ! _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
