>> -Original Message-
>> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:22 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>> Redux
>>
>> > After ignoring all of Isaac&
> So I decided to give your idea a try: a separate tag for
> each datatype.
> However the issue here is that (seemingly) you _must_
> define an indicator
> ("all", "choice" or "sequence") for complex types and
> that's just too damn
> restrictive.
> I would want to do something like this:
>
>
Okay - been playing most of the night - trying to build an XSD for this
stuff. I first tried my preferred "one tag" way. This works... but the XSD
isn't very detailed. Since you can't define constraints based on attribute
values I can't describe some rules I'd like. For example:
+) If the type
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:07 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>
> > Yeah... I'd like to pass recordsets in a meaningful way.
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:22 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments? Redux
>
> > After ignoring all of Isaac's good advice (sorry)
>
&g
> After ignoring all of Isaac's good advice (sorry)
Yes, but that was to be expected. :)
You've consistently (you might say systematically) rejected every bit
of good advice I've given you over the course of the last 5 years,
so... it's part for course. :)
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new e
After ignoring all of Isaac's good advice (sorry) I've decided to stick with
a single tag () to describe all data and positional fieldlists. I
can't fully explain it... but it definitely feels simpler to me.
However the problem of verbosity still exists (for recordsets especially).
Consider a re
> Yeah... I'd like to pass recordsets in a meaningful way.
> Of course a related problem is that there's really no
> simple way to pass a recordset from JS to the server
> since JS doesn't have the concept (I know I could
> create a "recordset" object in JS... but that's
> pushing things I think).
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:07 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>
> > My first pass had things like that... but when
> > getting in
> My first pass had things like that... but when
> getting into recordsets (which I'm still back
> and forth on) things started breaking down.
> If I do that as objects of arrays (as I did in
> the message) then this method works well.
> However if I do them as collections of records
> ("rows") th
> -Original Message-
> From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>
> I'd recommend dropping the "fields" attribute of your data
> -Original Message-
> From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:37 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>
> Just out of curiosity, Jim...why is SOAP too complicated for this? We've
> had
> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:04 AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: Re: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>>
>> The only thing I would disagree with would be this:
>>
>> >I could also take the
> -Original Message-
> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Attempt at a WDDX replacement... comments?
>
> The only thing I would disagree with would be this:
>
> >I could als
I'd recommend dropping the "fields" attribute of your data tag... use
a "name", "varname" or "variable" attribute in the child tag
instead... i.e. this packet:
blah
blah
blah
should be this:
blah
blah
blah
I say this because I don't like the i
The only thing I would disagree with would be this:
>I could also take the route some have and attempt to minimize the
>dialect (just use "d", "t" and "f" instead of "data", "type" and
>"fields" and use single digits to represent the data types) but as
much >space as that would save it's alw
16 matches
Mail list logo
