Kurt Ward wrote:
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.
Hmm, I'd like to hear your argument as to why it might not. It might
save me going down a dead end path caused by my own naivety.
When I
have something ready for use with the system I am
working on, I will post to the list.
Great, I'll look forward to hearing about it in the future.
-Mark
--- "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 reasonable 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 with
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/... accessible from Xindice.
But
now I here that
XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is
there any alternative
for my use case that Xindice is planning? Or would
it be possible for me
to "resurrect" an XMLObject interface for my
needs?
-Mark Diggory