cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ulrich Mayring <u...@denic.de>
Subject Re: [status & RT] design challenges
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2002 10:47:11 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> It's clearly a communication between a direct component (acting 'in' the
> pipe) and an indirect component (acting 'on' the pipe).
> 
> Passing information from direct to indirect components 'inside the pipe'
> it's, IMO, wrong and unnecessary.

Does metadata belong into the XML document or "somewhere else", that is
the question. For "somewhere else" I see these options:

a) XML schema. Does provide a place for meta data like data types, but
not really for workflow data. However, there's a standard for
processing.
b) WfMC or similar XML languages. Does provide support for workflow
data, but there is AFAIK no processing standard.
c) Home-grown solution. No standard whatsoever, but optimized to the
problem domain.

Compare this to:

d) Put workflow data into the XML content stream. There's a standard for
processing and a standard for placement (either home-grown, which is
fully supported by the XML standard or something like WfMC).

The drawback, as you mentioned, is that content data and meta data are
mixed in the same stream. I am undecided on whether that's evil or not,
because I am unable to fully determine the practical consequences.

cheers,

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message