Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
hotshot wrote:
The reason we modeled the other 1200 is because in future phases of the implementation, many others can be added and we want to make try and minimise the schema changes required.
As for its current design, I agree that it seems cumbersome to maintain it (to say the least), but since the field naming convention is quite simple (F1 to F1400), it's not overly complex to track down what you're after.
Then the flip side of this design choice is a cumbersome (your word) schema that will become hard or impossible to maintain if the naming convention changes.
Note also that the only difference between IIB and other validating XML parsers is that IIB front-loads the performance into the deployment process by "compiling" it, other parsers will chew through that schema at run time (even for 10 Kb XML) _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum