binarycloud-dev

[binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Andreas A. <a.a...@th...>]

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

Re:[binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Manuel L. <man...@uo...>]

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

RE: [binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Andreas A. <a.a...@th...>]

Hi Manuel, Alex,

>>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 later add tags to values to extend the meaning of those
>values. Since you can´t have tags in tag attributes, it is better
>to use SML.

Yes this is a good point. And it would be a mess to rewrite the entire
xml->php behaviour at a later point.

I.e if we want to extend the name tag (just an example, makes not very much
sense in this case):

<bc:module>
  <name>
    <internal>BcHelloWorld</internal>
    <descriptive>Hello World</descriptive>
  </name>
  ..
</bc:module>

Ok, the readbility lacks, especially for very short tags (i.e. <bc:img
id="23" />). But I think it's worth the effort. At a later point we can
support parameters if users want to use it, or they can implement their own
compiler that handles them)

>BTW, MetaL XML files are fully SML.
That's exactly what brought up this thought here :-)

Andi

Re: [binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

yeah,

I think:
    -SML as the standard, we'll of course allow any custom extensions that
have attribute support.

for all pure-xml files, I prefer XML by far.

-a

> Hi Manuel, Alex,
>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> What are you're thoughts on this?
>>=20
>> I think you are right, because XML is only really extensible if
>> you can later 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.
>=20
> Yes this is a good point. And it would be a mess to rewrite the entire
> xml->php behaviour at a later point.
>=20
> I.e if we want to extend the name tag (just an example, makes not very mu=
ch
> sense in this case):
>=20
> <bc:module>
> <name>
>   <internal>BcHelloWorld</internal>
>   <descriptive>Hello World</descriptive>
> </name>
> ..
> </bc:module>
>=20
> Ok, the readbility lacks, especially for very short tags (i.e. <bc:img
> id=3D"23" />). But I think it's worth the effort. At a later point we can
> support parameters if users want to use it, or they can implement their o=
wn
> compiler that handles them)
>=20
>> BTW, MetaL XML files are fully SML.
> That's exactly what brought up this thought here :-)
>=20
> Andi
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
>=20

Re: [binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

hmm...

In this case I like attributes, but I see andi and jason's point. There is
also (of course) the "it could work right now" thing.

So, let's use the SML syntax for the moment (I'll update that file, wherever
it is in CVS)

_a


> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
> 

RE: [binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Andreas A. <a.a...@th...>]

Hi Alex,

>In this case I like attributes, but I see andi and jason's point. There is
>also (of course) the "it could work right now" thing.
>
>So, let's use the SML syntax for the moment (I'll update that
>file, wherever it is in CVS)

Ok, agreed. I've changed an checked in the "compilertest.html" and a
XMLUtils based working ModuleCompiler (don't look at the code, it's not
clean) but it works :-)

Andi