I think we are in agreement (I disagree, we agree). An XML document is
capable of representing any object and all aspects of that object. But
an XML document isn't the object it represents. You have to deserialize
that document back into an object before you have the fully featured
object again. An XML repository could store those objects (in their
XML document representation) and even keep the relationships among those
objects, but it does not animate those objects. The objects are alive
when they are deserialized on the clients. To get a repository to
animate the objects you'd have to make the repository a bit more than
just a repository. For one thing, you'd also need a JVM.
>[...]
>My Javasoft proposal mentions Beans specifically, but for those of you not
>familiar with Beans, *every* Java object is automatically a Bean in JDK
>1.1. So, my proposal to Javasoft isn't a niche idea - it's meant to
>apply to all objects.
Oh, I fully agree here, too. Actually, I was thinking of your proposal
to JavaSoft when I wrote that previous post. I intended to mention that
XML repositories could serve as databases for serialized Java objects.
Your idea to use XML to represent serialized Java objects is intriguing.
As a side note, you mention that in JDK 1.1 every object is a bean. I
thought beans had to be serializable. Are you saying that in JDK 1.1
every Java object that ever gets created is serializable?
-- Joe Lapp (Java Apps Developer/Consultant) Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org jlapp@acm.orgxml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)