|
From: Craeg K S. <cs...@ar...> - 2003-06-16 02:24:11
|
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Craeg K Strong wrote: > >> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: >> So if we had a "Schema-URI" property for our >> "XMLValidateMethod" (I like that name) Zope object, then it could be >> optional for DTD/XMLSchema, but mandatory for Schematron, for >> example. I guess that's not so bad, if we make it clear in the docs. >> Just a bit crufty, tho... > > Yeah, quite crufty. However, first checking the XML whether any XML > schema is mentioned and then offering a manual input seems the best > solution for this problem. Yikes! Impossible. Remember that a single instance of xxxValidateMethod will be applied to *many* different XML documents. Some of those documents might explicitly mention a schema, some might not. In fact, you might add an xxxValidateMethod before *any* XML documents exist. Same as XSLTMethod and XPathMethod, no? >>> Maybe we'd also like to call them Processor instead of Validator, in >>> order to be consistent with IXPathProcessor and IXSLTProcessor. >> >> So, you are thinking there will be lots of other things to do with >> Schemas, such as automatically generating forms, python adaptor >> classes, or whatnot. The stuff that is already being done in Zope3, >> right? And you are thinking of adding these methods to the >> IxxxSchemaProcessor interface rather than creating separate, smaller >> interfaces. Hard to tell which is better, at this early stage, no? > > Heh, I was actually not thinking about ANY of these :) I was just > wondering whether it would be more consistent if we'd name the > interfaces IxxxSchemaProcessor instead of IxxxSchemaValidator because > they will be implemented by a *processor* (e.g. the FourSuiteProcessor). Oh. In the absence of anything else, I like Validator more, because it best describes what we are doing. However, if the interface becomes more general than that, I would support renaming. We can evolve this as necessary (at least until we make an official release :-) > Your ideas sound sweet, but to be honest, I doubt that they will be > any useful in Zope2. This is rather a Z3 thing since it comes with > automatic form generation and component architecture using adaptors. I understand. Let's wait and see. Someone may identify a compelling use case for which we just can't wait for Zope3 :) Of course, it would have to be something that provided high value at reasonably low (coding) cost... >>> Will there be an XMLValidateMethod object like XPathMethod or >>> XSLTMethod? Is this what you meant with "creating four small Zope >>> classes"? >> >> Yes. The choice is pretty simple: >> a) DTDValidateMethod, SchematronValidateMethod, etc. all inheriting >> from a ValidateMethod base class (cleaner, more OO) or >> b) A single XMLValidateMethod class, and you set a property to >> indicate the validation method you wish. (less clean, but maybe less >> code, fewer externally visible moving parts) > > I'd go with b). Do you still vote for this, even after my "Yikes!" comment (above)? >> I think this goes without saying. In fact, I would say that the "zope >> object ID" such as what we have in XSLTMethod, is really just a >> short cut for a "zope protocol" URI zope:foo/bar/mumble.xsl And you >> can use the zope protocol, FTP, file, HTTP, or whatever other URI >> protocol supported by your processsor of choice. Essentially, >> ZopeXMLMethods has extended the processor libraries to understand >> this addtional protocol. The Zope protocol features acquisition, etc. >> Perhaps it is more correct to call it the ZODB protocol? dunno. > > I'd say zope:// sounds good, but I'm not sure whether we'd want > file://. Maybe file:// would be zope:// and we wouldn't have to invent > another protocol prefix? This would ease things for 3rd party products > that would "mount" the ZODB over FTP, WebDAV or whatever and rever to > the entities over the file:// protocol. Yeah. This is getting into VFS territory. This is not something I am motivated to explore in Zope2. However, I really think Zope3 needs to do something here. Of course, I am speaking from ignorance. There may already be good stuff going on there. My plan is to dive in as soon as the 3X beta happens ~ 1 month(?) >> b) whether the zope base classe was listed first or not. > > yes. That rings a bell. I'm not an expert, but I now that you mention > it, I think that was the problem. OK, I think that is fairly easily avoided... --Craeg |
