Hello Tim, and thanks for your reply. It was very helpful. (And also
thanks for replying both to me and the module list, which in the past some
people didn't do.)
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tim Bunce wrote:
> DOM shouldn't imply XML. But you could drop the D and expand the OM into
> SQL::ObjectModel,
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 07:51:45PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> So, my first questions are these: 1. Would a DOM-for-SQL be useful in its
> own right to other module developers, and therefore grow beyond its
> previous intention of being "part of just one framework";
Er, perhaps :-)
> 2. What
