> I think the current names are fine actually... the server contains only > server code, core contains > the database whether used by a server, or directly by the embed driver, and > client contains > code to -generically access the server, and package this server access > through XML:DB or possibly other means (tb determined later)...
I missed the "As standards in the XML database area mature Xindice will include support for those that are most important." and thought that Xindice only support XML:DB. But the core package is also dependent on the XMLDB:API But I'm still not convinced for the client/server separation. For example the apache.xmlrpc doesn't have separate packages for the client and server. But this can wait. A user asked about the integration SiXDML and I'm wondering how we can provide a simple achitecture to allow SiXDML embedded, SiXDML over XML-RPC, SixDML over HTTPS, SiXDML over SOAP and so on. Is it possible to separate the "client/server" communication from the transport? > 1) there's a complete B-Tree implementation, and XML documents are in fact > trees, but are stored simply as byte arrays... Why not store NODES in the > B-Tree, allowing much more clever indexing You should be able to write other implementations of filers. Well, that was the intent but we still have to read the property file to set the correct filer. Still brainstorming... -Vladimir ===== Vladimir R. Bossicard Apache Xindice - http://xml.apache.org/xindice __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
