Karsten Otto wrote:
> Am 05.12.2007 um 22:13 schrieb Peter Amstutz:

>>> The interface description seems to slowly approach WSDL Land... Have
>>> you considered some shorthand syntax to free a developer of all the
>>> XML clutter? Or do you envision GUI-based development tools for this
>>> (really the only way to live with WSDL if you have to use it)?
>> I agree.  It's not high on my own list of priorities, but this  
>> would be
>> a good, easy project if someone wants to help out. (hint, hint)
> I am tempted, but probably wouldn't get around to it for a while due  
> to the workload of my current day job. Anybody else? :-)

This is what I was referring to in my other message about setting up a 
clever and elegant XML schema or DTD.  The total schema system would be 
built up and augmented by each new type defined, e.g. by adding XML 
namespaces on top of the base XOD elements or something.

Or you could use any file format for Vobjects, even COD.   Back in S4 I 
  sketched out a possible curly-bracket format called "SOD" I think 
(don't remember it exactly anymore though, maybe there's a message about 
it in the archive?).    You can use all the tools for working with 
vobjects in the UI client application to set up the OTD; they can be 
stored remotely; versioned; all the powerful VOS features.

Or we could develop have a super-simple text file whose only purpose is 
to capture the basic OTD information, and have a tool that spits out the 
XOD, and you just put it all together in a Makefile.


vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to