[Standards] Feedback on I/O Object Forms
chris.mullins at coversant.net
Fri Mar 16 16:23:02 UTC 2007
"Julian Kölle" Wrote:
>> 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? :)
More information about the Standards