On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 06:42 AM, James Bates wrote:
While implementing XML:DB interfaces:
* Does Xindice have any notion of "BinaryResource"? The XML-RPC server doesn't export any,
but then when checking in org.apache.xindice.core.collection, nor does the Xindice engine itself.
Don't worry about implementing BinaryResource.
* Are we keeping the XML objects? If so, where do they fit into XML:DB? Into a separate service (as was
the case in the CORBA client)
I'd personally like to see XMLObjects put into the dust bin and replaced with a much simpler way of providing the same functionality. Basically just giving users the ability to define custom messages for the API to extend the server. This would cut out about 6,000 lines of code from the server and it would be easier to call the extension functionality this way.
The only problem is that XMLObjects were also supposed to be used for triggers eventually. Whether this is the right way to go or not I don't know, it's just what I personally would like to see. I've always felt XMLObjects are a far too complex way to achieve what they do.
If we keep XMLObjects as is, then we'd just need to add a message to expose them and we'd keep the proprietary XML:DB API service to call them.
The service should probably be redesigned a bit to make it easier to work with.
BTW, if you haven't already, download the API sources from the XML:DB server. There's a decent set of unit tests for the XML:DB API in it that would help a lot with a new API implementation.
James
Kimbro Staken Java and XML Software, Consulting and Writing http://www.xmldatabases.org/ Apache Xindice native XML database http://xml.apache.org/xindice XML:DB Initiative http://www.xmldb.org
