Symphony.

The Rev 5 update thread got hijacked, so Im reclaiming it and moving the discussion here. ;)

---

davethegr8

I have to respectfully disagree that dynamic xml is any better then external xml. This is because external makes more sense - it is external to the symphony system. I think dynamic could be misleading. "Are we only allowed to use dynamic xml files? What if it never changes?"

I would suggest that instead of either dynamic (which doesn't really describe the situation well) or external (which could have the aforementioned problems), "Import XML" could be used, since it describes what you want to do. You're importing xml into symphony.

If this doesn't seem like the best solution, I would then suggest that this nomenclature could be examined more closely.

Scott

Are we only allowed to use dynamic xml files? What if it never changes?

Yes, you are only allowed to use it for dynamic content. For static content, copy and paste the data into a "Static XML" data source.

In fact, I had the exact same reaction as you did to Nils' suggestion, but after thinking about it some more, I realised he was completely correct. Symphony treats "External XML" resources as though they're dynamic, with caching and constant updating, so you should always be using this for dynamic XML. In effect, the way to "import" static XML is to copy and paste it into a static XML DS.

davethegr8

I was more playing devil's advocate than looking for answers to those questions. I feel like those would get asked a lot.

And although I don't agree 100% with the terminology, I can see the reasoning behind it.

OT: Alistair, maybe you want something like this http://lussumo.com/addons/index.php?PostBackAction=AddOn&AddOnID=290 in order to split/merge topics :-D