4 ms·
Well yes. The problem there is that someone made a bad decision on how to structure their XML. If the same was done like this: <customer custid="496F3AB"
by tokenizerrr 13y ago
Well yes. The problem there is that someone made a bad decision on how to structure their XML. If the same was done like this:
<customer custid="496F3AB">
<account>
<type>Personal</type>
...
</account>
<account>
<type>Business</type>
...
</account>
</customer>
it would make a lot more sense, I think.
- icebraining 13y agoOr: <customer> <custid>496F3AB</custid> <accounts> <account> <type>Personal</type> ... </account> <account> <type>Business</type> ... </account> </accounts> </customer>
- sixbrx 13y agoWhich problem XML makes all too easy. The really annoying issue is as the parent says, that the accounts collection does not have a name. This means there's no canonical mapping for the structure into a programming language object, which necessitates that libraries require annotations or some other side-channel way of specifying how to wrap the accounts into a collection. In Jaxb e.g., how many times must we add junk like: @XmlElementWrapper(name = "accounts") ? In any individual case the workaround is easy, but it's annoying to have to do it repeatedly. XML really is better as document markup than structured data representation.