Please, let's move these technical discussions to the proper XAPI-DEV list. I CC this to the general mailing list because most people aren't subscribed to the XAPI-DEV list yet.
[--------------------------------------------------------------------] On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:13:31 -0800 Ronald Bourret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lars Martin wrote: > > I'm not sure about this. Does it shouldn't be always the same return > > type (live vs. copy) to avoid confusion? If so, I prefer a copy of the > > retrieved node / node set. > > Unless the actual DOM interface is different (e.g. it might have > extensions for committing transactions), I don't see why. The > application knows what it is asking for by setting a property saying > "live" or "static". But then you have to modify your application if you change the database backend to a product that doesn't support a "live" view but your application assumes to have one. And I suppose that most databases won't support a "live" view of database content. Anyway... I like the idea to have both options. At least 'ozoneXML' provides a "live" view via proxy objects (don't know for future releases). But we should focus on the core architecture for the 1.0 release of the API. Besides this, I would like to know what advantages do *you* expect to have with live DOM? > Another solution is to have two different services -- one for live DOM > and the other for static DOM. Lars -- ______________________________________________________________________ Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SMB GmbH http://www.smb-tec.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
