I am simply saying that server extensions or "stored procedure" type customizations are somewhat still available. Whether or not your project can benefit from this, I'm not sure. As far as "including" parts of the xml from relational data, I'm not convinced that it will work the way you intend it to. When I have something ready for use with the system I am working on, I will post to the list.
Kurt --- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, It does sound of interest, I guess I need to > clarify the goal I'm > reaching for and see if what your working on can > meet that goal: > > I have xml documents that I want to place into a > Xindice Collection that > generally look like this: > > <codeBook> > <stdyDscr> > <!-- these sections are resonable in size and > can go directly > into Xindice--> > </stdyDscr> > <dataDscr> > <!- this section is not reasonable in size, > variables can number > in the thousands and contain large amounts of > information. I want these > sections to be in a different storage solution but > be retrievable witht > he rest of the document through Xindice itself. --> > <var id="1">....</var> > <var id="2">....</var> > <var id="3">....</var> > <var id="4">....</var> > ... > <var id="NNNN">....</var> > </dataDscr> > <codeBook> > > When I do an xpath query in Xindice, I want to be > able to search the var > section as well. But I wanted it to be through an > XMLObject that was > working with an relational db to improve the > performance of that subtree. > > Would your solution be applicable in this case or is > it an XML-RPC > solution that would fall outside of Xindice via a > different XML-RPC > command/ interface? > > thank you, > Mark > > > Kurt Ward wrote: > > >Mark, > > > >You can write custom functions via the XML-RPC > >interface. You won't be able to call them from the > >XML:DB API, but you CAN call them directly via > >XML-RPC. The only downside is you would have to > run > >the build process each time you added a new > extension. > >I have been working on a system outside of the > current > >CVS tree (mostly because it does not support > Xindice > >in embedded mode) that is similar to the way > >XMLObjects worked in 1.0, but less complicated and > >does not require you to run the build. It also > allows > >for restrictions such as 'run from localhost only' > and > >'require SSL protocol' as execution options for > >example. Let me know if this sounds interesting to > >you... > > > >Kurt > > > >--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > > > >>Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations? > >> > >>Mark R. Diggory wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi everyone, > >>> > >>>I have a question concerning the removal of > >>> > >>> > >>XMLObject in 1.1. > >> > >> > >>>I was interested in possibly building an > XMLObject > >>> > >>> > >>to store very large > >> > >> > >>>"table like" fragments of my XML documents in a > >>> > >>> > >>relation db that would > >> > >> > >>>be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice. > But > >>> > >>> > >>now I here that > >> > >> > >>>XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is > >>> > >>> > >>there any alternative > >> > >> > >>>for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would > >>> > >>> > >>it be possible for me > >> > >> > >>>to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my > needs? > >>> > >>>-Mark Diggory > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >
