Article:		Typeless Schemas and Services
Subject:		so what's the gain using anonymous types?
Date:		2004-04-03 07:22:48
From:		Rich Salz
Response to: so what's the gain using anonymous types?
I believe it's less complex to have one 'name' for the structure (or type, if you want to call it that), rather than two. In other words, when you see tns:Foo, you know what the XML inside is going to look like. If you add another level of indirection, by using XSD types, you can still do it but it's more complicated. I don't know if I'd call that just "philosophy," perhaps "engineering philosophy." :)

Previous Message

Up

Next Message

• so what's the gain using anonymous types?
  2004-04-05 08:21:10 Eric Schwarzenbach [Reply]
  
  You (as you note) are trading off reuse. To be able to reuse a given type, you can trade the complexity of adding 1 additional name to be able to reuse it for multiple elements. This seems a pretty good trade. It seems to me you ought to have better justification for such a sweeping rule.

  
  Besides, the additional complexity of those type names is hidden from the standpoint of document instances.