Re: XAPI

Sean Mc Grath (digitome@iol.ie)
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:36:04 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: XML internal text entity replacement text"
Maybe in reply to: Kevin Grimes: "XAPI"

[Jonathan Robie]
>
>Is there really an advantage to defining it in IDL first? The IDL could be
>created after the specification is finished in Java, and the Java-based
>specification is probably easier to create, understand, and test. I *like*
>making things language independent, but at this stage, I'm leery of adding
>complexity that doesn't add any new conceptual power.

Hmmm. IDL == Language independent spec of an API....might this be better
approached
as an XML application? I.e. a DTD for the XML API spec. A doc conforming to
that spec.
that can be down-translated to Java, C++, Python and (gasp) IDL!

APIs are stuctured docs. Let's practice what we are preaching and capture the
API in XML. Unless there are compelling reasons why this does not make sense.

Just thinking out loud and looking forward to a discussion on the issue.

Sean

Previous message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: XML internal text entity replacement text"
Maybe in reply to: Kevin Grimes: "XAPI"