Hi Donal, all, Donal K. Fellows schrieb:
Alexander Papaspyrou wrote:
What about a single dependency type with attributes like "before", "after", "togetherwith", "whenfailed" and so on? The attributes could then be externalized to an enumeration and extended over time without breaking the core.
Are the dependencies which they are modelling "typed the same"? If so, then describing the type of dependency as a decoration (probably an attribute, but that's a minor XML encoding matter) on the element is fine. If not, we'd be making an unholy mess.
Yes, I would model them as one single type with the dependency as a decoration. And yes, you are probably right that not doing this would result in an utter mess...
I don't know if they are the same or not, BTW. It's just the question that needs answering. Since you appear to have thought about this a bit longer than I have, I'll export my question to you. :-)
I am currently working on a prototype XSD for this and will post it to the list ASAP (have to find my fireman suit first).
BTW, the "before" and "after" types seem at first glance to be symmetric views on the same dependency arc. Can we do without one of them? Let's try to keep down the number of ways of describing any particular concept!
Hm, they seem to be. I'll have to rethink this. Since this dependency stuff is somewhat subtle, I'll try to construct a few examples. -Alexander -- Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Papaspyrou | 44221 Dortmund, NRW (Germany) Robotics Research Institute | phone : +49(231)755-5058 Information Technology Section | fax : +49(231)755-3251 Dortmund University | web : http://www.irf.de/