[XML-SIG] The '_' thingy
Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:50:06 -0600
> Mike Olson writes:
> > So, I think I see this as a general concensius:
> I am not consent.
> > 1. DOM will never (in forseeable future) be used over an ORB, so the
> > IDL should be used as a guide. We should focus more on useability then
> > CORBA compliance.
> I would like very much that database suppliers (Oracle, Poet, Zope)
> would support DOM access to the objects in the database through
> CORBA. AFAIK, Oracle already uses an ORB to facilitate integration.
I agree. I'm actually quite surprised Mike said that, since we have had good
reason to use DOM over CORBA before. We should also nota that as Jim points
out, sometimes DOM is just a convenient notation for a more complex beast. If
"childNodes" is doing a large database join, for instance, I think the
arguments about the DOM IDL being too fine-grained tend to evaporate.
There is a place for DOM-over-CORBA. Not a common one, but it's there.
> > If all are good with this, then we should start down this path. A
> > langauge mapping is something we can put into the next release of 4DOM
> > (something we've been meaning to do any ways). The rest of the cahnges
> > are actually in place (unless we define a different callback naming
> > convention). We will be slowly depricating _get_* soon as well.
> > However we will still need __setattr__ callbacks in some cases....
> You may depricate it, but please continue to support it --
> for people that know IDL and use the IDL->Python mapping.
I don't think we'll be making _any_ rash moves in the near future, rest
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
firstname.lastname@example.org +01 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python