[Standards] Feedback on I/O Object Forms

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Fri Mar 16 16:23:02 UTC 2007


"Julian Kölle" Wrote:

[Using X-Data]

>> X-Data (to me) seems to allow machine-to-machine 
>> with no trouble. 

> We thought about extending X-Data, too. However, 
> as I pointed out and as you mentioned here, 
> X-Data is for human usability. 

I don't agree with that - I use X-Data all over the place for machine-to-machine communication.

The biggest plus (to me) for using X-Data is the HUGE amount of support it already has in existing SDK's. For example the SDK with which I'm most familiar is the SoapBox Framework - we've got thousands of lines of code that operate on these forms and make them easy to use. Converting an initial form to a Submit form is all done, as are all the checks for things like required fields. Yes, there are GUI tools there too, but there's no need to use them. 

Adding a new field to X-Data is way less work than creating a new Data-Forms-Like infrastructure. 

> X-Data is just *one* data envelope, not *the* 
> data envelope. 

I agree with you there. On the other hand, based on the examples I've seen (and that you have described) it seems like a pretty good fit. 

> How would a client X-Data GUI react on a XML object 
> tree that contains the phylogenetic tree of a 
> protein, including several protein sequences? 

Well, it would call out to DirectX or OpenGL to render it in 3D of course! What else would you expect it to do? :)

--
Chris Mullins



More information about the Standards mailing list