Re: Streamlining the schema file format

> Hi,
>
> Piotras wrote:
>>>You mean using externally defined database tables for Midgard classes.
>>>It doesn't work in any case as long as we want to have things like
>>>metadata and guids for Midgard objects.
>>
>> I do not talk about if it works I wonder if we need this.
>
> I haven't seen any real use cases, and in any case it wouldn't work with
> the current metadata and guid stuff. So I'm quite convinced that even if
> someone needs that feature, we still won't have it.

Metadata stuff is easy to switch off or on , guid is much worse for example.
What I was thinking about is for example some databases used for vpopmail like
accounts where you can not define columns like you want but you must name columns
with particular names.
This way you can merge midgard framework with mail system.
Without any need to write hacked midgard plugin for MTA.

>> I thought that xml schema is much more flexible and future feature.
>> Not xml DTD.
>
> You are right. XML Schema or something like Relax NG would probably be
> more flexible than DTD. I can quite easily convert the DTD into XML
> Schema, but that's a minor detail compared to the issue of what the
> schema file format really is or should be.

Should , should :)
We were talking about repligard only at the beginning so I wanted to keep this
file as close to repligard's schema as possible.

>> As I wrote at the beginning. We have two mandatory node names.
>> Other are optional and other than optional ones are ignored.
>
> I know. It would still be nice if we had an exact definition of what
> elements and attributes are interpreted by the schema loader and how
> they work. The wiki page documentation is a lot nicer than I expected,
> but it still is partly incomplete and outdated,

what , where?

> and the schema loading
> code is IMHO a major mess.

You forgot to write *mess* ;)

Anyway , let's make it.

Piotras