Isn't XML:DB just a set of interfaces? Doesn't Xindice provide more functionality than what is in XML:DB? Thus, it would seem that Xindice needs to provide its own API that mostly matches XML:DB, but also supports Xindicisms. Then you could have many different implementations of the Xindice API.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Kimbro Staken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Xindice as a servlet? > > > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 01:30 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: > > > If the CORBA and/or XML-RPC implementations where just layers on top of > > the local implementation this wouldn't be an issue. > > Why would you want to add another layer inside the server? Unless I'm > misunderstanding, what you're suggesting is. > > XML:DB API -> network -> CORBA -> local XML:DB API -> Core classes. > > Or alternatitvely > > XML-DB API -> network -> XML-RPC -> local XML:DB API -> Core classes. > > As should be apparent from this there's no value in adding the local > XML:DB API into the stack. Both the CORBA and XML-RPC services are already > just layers implemented against the same set of internal classes. > > > Simply add a > > configuration directive to specify whether you want a CORBA or XML-RPC > > implementation to be made available. > > > > To answer you other question, yes, I would be willing to help code it. > > > > What would be valuable is for someone to write the local XML:DB API > implementation. It's really not that hard. Just about anyone who is > embedding the server would probably like to see that. It would make it > quite simple to move from an embedded database to a full network database > simply by using the alternate XML:DB implementations. > > > -Matt > > > 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
