On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Jakob Fix <[email protected]> wrote: > so, would it be advisable to have this (where only application.xqy has > all information necessary, but minimal inclusion takes place) > > - application.xqy that includes > - configuration.xqy > - library1.xqy > - library2.xqy > - lowlevelfunctions.xqy > > or rather this (where each library module is independent as it > includes what's needed) > > - application.xqy that includes > - library1.xqy which includes > - configuration.xqy > - lowlevelfunctions.xqy > - library2.xqy which includes > - configuration.xqy > - lowlevelfunctions.xqy > > or still another scenario? > > sorry if that sounds confusing,
no not at all ... a few things; I would advise using an application level configuration library that is global to your application as a starting point. from there, depending on how you want to encapsulate your libraries, you could take advantage of ML support for private annotations http://docs.marklogic.com/5.0doc/docapp.xqy#display.xqy?fname=http://pubs/5.0doc/xml/xquery/enhanced.xml%2376225 which you can use to indicate where you would not want certain variables to be protected from changing as author intention. If you are to create standalone libraries then I would suggest that you try to keep the imports to a minimum, pref to 1 so I would stump up for placing variables within the library module themselves and declare those which I would like to redefine by marking them external. hth, Jim Fuller _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
