This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: object-oriented XSL
- From: martin at hack dot org
- To: "'xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:36:55 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: RE: [xsl] object-oriented XSL
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > the idea is based on the concept of using XML as a programming language,
> > pretty much like XSL, but instead of a declarative, transform-focused
> > language it would be procedural, even object-oriented.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the need. If you're "bending over backwards" to make
> XSLT do business logic you're probably not using it correctly. In
> particular, I find that multiple transformations combined with data
> aggregation from multiple sources is sufficient for representing all logic
> (not just business logic) completely.
of course it is sufficient, so is a Turing machine, it doesn't mean that
it is the most suitable tool for the purpose. i'm not here to preach the
advantages of object-oriented development, but i believe that although
XSLT can be used for other things, it's purpose and focus is, and should
be, XML transforms.
> Thinking in terms of using trees to prune and enhance other trees isn't
> procedural logic and thus may not seem natural if procedural programming is
> your background. However, it is an efficient and complete programming
> methodology; the addition of procedural logic is not necessary. If you want
> procedural logic, use a procedural language (Java comes to mind!), don't
> invent a new one. If you want to combine XML and procedural methodologies
> in a single "language" you may want to look at XSP (implemented again in
> Cocoon, but I believe also other places?) which combines XML and Java.
if you want declarative logic, use a declarative language, don't invent a
new one! seriously though, coming from a background of both functional and
procedural programming i think i am capable to see the strengths as well
as the weaknesses of XSLT. and it's exactly its strengths that i am
wishing to leverage here, and i think that to a great extent that can be
done within a purely procedural, oo model.
XSP is nice, but it doesn't go all the way in integrating the language
into the XML model as XSLT has.
just my £.02
/m
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list