Comments on: Two more reasons why validation is still harmful http://www.coactus.com/blog/2007/01/two-more-reasons-why-validation-is-still-harmful/ Topics in Web based integration Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:16:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Integrate This»Blog Archive » David Baron on versioning http://www.coactus.com/blog/2007/01/two-more-reasons-why-validation-is-still-harmful/#comment-774 Integrate This»Blog Archive » David Baron on versioning Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:33:49 +0000 http://www.coactus.com/blog/?p=37#comment-774 [...] David Baron of Mozilla has chimed in on a topic near and dear to much of the work we do at Coactus. It looks like it’s part one of a series; I look forward to the rest. [...] [...] David Baron of Mozilla has chimed in on a topic near and dear to much of the work we do at Coactus. It looks like it’s part one of a series; I look forward to the rest. [...]

]]> By: Marc de Graauw - Random Notes » Blog Archive » Validation Considered Essential http://www.coactus.com/blog/2007/01/two-more-reasons-why-validation-is-still-harmful/#comment-726 Marc de Graauw - Random Notes » Blog Archive » Validation Considered Essential Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:25:18 +0000 http://www.coactus.com/blog/?p=37#comment-726 [...] I just ran into a disaster scenario which Mark Baker recently described as the way things should be: a new message exchange without schema validation. He writes: “If the message can be understood, then it should be processed” and in a comment “I say we just junk the practice of only processing ‘valid’ documents … and let the determination of obvious constraints … be done by the software responsible for processing that value.” I’ll show this is unworkable, undesirable and impossible (in that order). I’ve got an application out there which reads XML sent to my customer. The XML format is terrible, and old - it predates XML Schema. So there is no schema, just an Excel file with “AN…10″ style descriptions and value lists. It is built into my software, and works pretty well - my code does the validation, and the incoming files are always processed fine. [...] [...] I just ran into a disaster scenario which Mark Baker recently described as the way things should be: a new message exchange without schema validation. He writes: “If the message can be understood, then it should be processed” and in a comment “I say we just junk the practice of only processing ‘valid’ documents … and let the determination of obvious constraints … be done by the software responsible for processing that value.” I’ll show this is unworkable, undesirable and impossible (in that order). I’ve got an application out there which reads XML sent to my customer. The XML format is terrible, and old - it predates XML Schema. So there is no schema, just an Excel file with “AN…10″ style descriptions and value lists. It is built into my software, and works pretty well - my code does the validation, and the incoming files are always processed fine. [...]

]]> By: subbu.org http://www.coactus.com/blog/2007/01/two-more-reasons-why-validation-is-still-harmful/#comment-569 subbu.org Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:51:58 +0000 http://www.coactus.com/blog/?p=37#comment-569 <strong>More on Validation</strong> Does validation mean that interface and implementation are tightly coupled, makig a service hard to maintain? Mark Baker posted some more questions on validation yesterday. Validation does have merits in some cases, and the bigger challenge is designin... More on Validation

Does validation mean that interface and implementation are tightly coupled, makig a service hard to maintain? Mark Baker posted some more questions on validation yesterday. Validation does have merits in some cases, and the bigger challenge is designin…

]]>