Thread: [binarycloud-general] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

Hi All,

I just realized that we're using simplified XML (SML) throughout the system
(except for the bc:module, bc:href, etc. tags). What do you think of keeping
it simple also with the bc:*-tags?

-- the attributes way --
<bc:module id="moo" name="HelloWorld" package="hello_world">
  <cache expires="30" use_uri="true" var="$moo"/>
    <params>
        <param_name>value</param_name>
        <another_param_name>another_value</another_param_name>
    </params>
</bc:module>
<bc:href id="href" href="/archive/mp3/any_document.mp3" usedocroot="true" />

-- the sml way --
<bc:module>
  <id>moo</id>
  <name>HelloWorld</name>
  <package>some.package</package>
  <cache>
    <expires>30</expires>
    <use_uri>true</use_uri>
    <var>$moo</var>
  </cache>
  <params>
    <param_name>value</param_name>
    <another_param_name>another_value</another_param_name>
  </params>
</bc:module>

<bc:href>
  <id>href</id>
  <href>/archive/mp3/any_document.mp3</href>
  <usedocroot>true</usedocroot>
</bc:href>

I'm kinda unsure. I like both and both is descriptive as well as
standardized ;-) But, in the bcp we use the "simple" format and maybe we
should keep this convetion throughout.

What are you're thoughts on this?

:andi

Well, ideally, a perfect system would support both.  I've personally
always preferred the attributes style simply because it means less
typing, and it's easier to read.

jason


Andreas Aderhold wrote:
> I just realized that we're using simplified XML (SML) throughout the system
> (except for the bc:module, bc:href, etc. tags). What do you think of keeping
> it simple also with the bc:*-tags?
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm kinda unsure. I like both and both is descriptive as well as
> standardized ;-) But, in the bcp we use the "simple" format and maybe we
> should keep this convetion throughout.
> 
> What are you're thoughts on this?

Hi Jason,

>Well, ideally, a perfect system would support both.
Heh :)

>I've personally always preferred the attributes style
>simply because it means less typing, and it's easier to read.

Both would be perfect, of course. I need to think about how the translation
to php will be. If we use the sml style we can use XMLUtils out of the box
to compile the bc:* tags.

Andi

I would certainly use SML style then.  Adding support for attributes to
XMLUtils can be done later.



Andreas Aderhold wrote:
> >Well, ideally, a perfect system would support both.
> Heh :)
> 
> >I've personally always preferred the attributes style
> >simply because it means less typing, and it's easier to read.
> 
> Both would be perfect, of course. I need to think about how the translation
> to php will be. If we use the sml style we can use XMLUtils out of the box
> to compile the bc:* tags.
oud-general

Hello,

>I just realized that we're using simplified XML (SML) throughout the sys=
tem
>(except for the bc:module, bc:href, etc. tags). What do you think of kee=
ping
>it simple also with the bc:*-tags?
>
>-- the attributes way --
><bc:module id=3D"moo" name=3D"HelloWorld" package=3D"hello_world">
>  <cache expires=3D"30" use_uri=3D"true" var=3D"$moo"/>
>    <params>
>        <param_name>value</param_name>
>        <another_param_name>another_value</another_param_name>
>    </params>
></bc:module>
><bc:href id=3D"href" href=3D"/archive/mp3/any_document.mp3" usedocroot=3D=
"true" />
>
>-- the sml way --
><bc:module>
>  <id>moo</id>
>  <name>HelloWorld</name>
>  <package>some.package</package>
>  <cache>
>    <expires>30</expires>
>    <use_uri>true</use_uri>
>    <var>$moo</var>
>  </cache>
>  <params>
>    <param_name>value</param_name>
>    <another_param_name>another_value</another_param_name>
>  </params>
></bc:module>
>
><bc:href>
>  <id>href</id>
>  <href>/archive/mp3/any_document.mp3</href>
>  <usedocroot>true</usedocroot>
></bc:href>
>
>I'm kinda unsure. I like both and both is descriptive as well as
>standardized ;-) But, in the bcp we use the "simple" format and maybe we
>should keep this convetion throughout.
>
>What are you're thoughts on this?

I think you are right, because XML is only really extensible if you can l=
ater add tags to values to extend the meaning of those values. Since you =
can=B4t have tags in tag attributes, it is better to use SML.

That is the reason why Metabase XML format is also in SML. I realized the=
 need to make it SML when I added support to specify external variables w=
ith tag values. That was right before I made first Metabase public releas=
e. I am glad I did it.

BTW, MetaL XML files are fully SML. I have forbidden non-SML constructs i=
n the XML parser, just in case somebody (I) forgets.

Regards,
Manuel Lemos