Slides from “Integrating XML into the Java™ Programming Language”

The conference versions of everybody’s slides are now available, but they’re in a somewhat inconvenient form—enormous zip files—and, in the case of my XML talk, they contain more slides than you probably want to wade through.

My XML talk, as presented, has 197 slides due to a combination of my minimalist no-bullets, code-rich presentation style and the lack of decent text-animation facilities in StarOffice. I’ve condensed it down to a mere 109 slides for convenient review. Even so this version will probably still only make sense to those who attended the presentation in Moscone. I hope to post a written-out version of essentially the same material fairly soon—watch this space.

Comments:

Personally, I really don't like the literal syntax you are proposing. None of both. But, if you want more detailled feedback, please contact me.

Posted by Vincent Brabant on June 14, 2006 at 05:50 PM PDT #

It could be cool if the XPath syntax can be typechecked :

List<XML> fs=
featureList.findAll("feature[state!='approved']");
becomes
 
List<Attribute> attr=
featureList.findAll(#feature[state!="approved"].state];

and even better if there is a support for other query languages like SQL, OQL ... by letting the user defining it's own query language.

RĂ©mi Forax

Posted by Rémi Forax on June 14, 2006 at 06:33 PM PDT #

Must say I'm still not convinced we need language-level XML support, but at least it is a neat "trick".

If I would have to choose between formats I definitely prefer the second one, even if it removes the 1:1 mental mapping you could make it is a lot easier on the eyes.

If I see all the code examples using the XML-syntax I would just want to bury that kind of code as deeply as I could and hope I'd never have to touch it again, just looking at it makes my head spin (it's almost perl-like! ;-)

Besides, how is code using a lot of generics (xxx<List>) mixed in with XML (<list>xxx<list>) going to look?
Foo<Bar> = new Foo<Bar>(<list>xxx<list>);

Another complaint I have with the XML syntax is that the <> symbols would again be overloaded to have distinct meanings depending on the context they are used in (they are already overloaded of course because they can be used in calculations and in generics, with XML this would add a third meaning). This overloading of symbols is exactly what I hate about C++ (eg. I never got used to the & being a pointer-of and a reference operator depending on the position relative to the variable.)

The second syntax at least can be made to look "pretty" and is a lot less verbose.

Posted by Tako Schotanus on June 14, 2006 at 06:38 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
About

This blog has moved to http://mreinhold.org/blog. <script>var p = window.location.pathname.split('/'); var n = p[p.length - 1].replace(/_/g,'-'); if (n != "301") window.location = "http://mreinhold.org/blog/" + n;</script>

Search

Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today
News

No bookmarks in folder

Blogroll

No bookmarks in folder

Feeds
RSS Atom