xml question

[ScotsPine]

i create a recordset and persist it directly to xml using
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> objRS.Save objXML, adPersistXML<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->
thus cunningly avoiding a disk write/read

i then send it to the browser using
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> Response.write objXML.transformNode(objXSL)<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

...all standard stuff.

but when i try to sort on the displayed column headers i get
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> "document.xmlDocument is null or not an object."<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

is there any way of getting client-side code to see the 'on-the-fly' xml as a document object?

[crb71]

did you ever solve this? Not that I have an anwer, but I'm interested in the solution

[Joe Bloggs]

I'll second that.

To be honest I never quite understood what the problem was.

From what you described you're persisting a data-set as XML then carrying out a transform via XSLT to send to the client (presumably as HTML). In which case you would never be able to access the XMLDOM as you never provided it to the client.

Was that the problem??

[ScotsPine]

if i create

objXML as a domdocument, persist a recordset to it and then run it through the stylesheet and then send to the browser with response.contenttype as text/xml, why won't it recognise the document.xmldocument when the only difference is that i don't first save to disk and then load the file off disk as a domdocument before transforming? the object model is present on the client - it has to be for the first instance of the document, prior to any requests for client-side sorting, to be rendered, no?
i did get it to run finally but i can't find my kludge/fix/workaround...:\
i'll keep looking...

[Joe Bloggs]

Re: if i create

"the object model is present on the client - it has to be"

Unfortunately I still don't quite understand what you mean. Maybe I'm missing something blindingly obvious.

From what I understood you were loading an XML DOM object via a stream rather than saving and reloading the data - I don't think this part really matters.

You then carry out a tranform against an XSL/XSLT stylesheet and write the result to the client, in which case it suggests you're performing the transform on the server via ASP(.Net)/VB Script etc

If this is the case then what were you sending to the client, HTML or XML. If its the former then the client/browser will have no knowledge of the information except as a DOM 1/2 document, rather than the XML DOM you seem to need.

If it's the latter then you should have access to the XML.

Does that make sense?

[ScotsPine]

as clear as mud.

of course i'm sending xml to the client, although not via a stream. that is why i'm having problems. i'm not sure
a) why you fail to see the problem and
b) why you have jumped in with such a prickly attitude?

like i mentioned, i have a 'fix' which i'm happy with which involves writing out the xml from asp code rather than adPersisting it. works fine!

[Joe Bloggs]

Re: as clear as mud.

prickly attitude?, uh where did that come from?

Like crb I was just curious if you found a solution and wondered what the problem was.

It didn't seem clear in either of your other posts that you were "of course sending xml to the client", simply the result of a transform.

Nice to know that trying to understand someone elses problem is considered having an attitude.

[ScotsPine]

ok apologies...

i did post that "with response.contenttype as text/xml" but in anycase, i'm still not happy with (despite my bravado claim earlier!) my workaround and i'm still scratching around to see why it won't work.

[WouldBeEntrepreneur]

I'm no expert in web stuff but ...

I have used XML in web pages before by writing it out as "islands" (probably an old fashioned term now!). These then become objects in the document which can be manipulated using client side script.

Sorry if I have misunderstood the problem, just trying to help with what little knowledge I have in this area. I mostly did XML and XSL/T work for systems integration type work (e.g. SOAP) rather than web pages.

[ScotsPine]

yes,

effectively that was my kludge, i suppose. but i still can't see why the original method won't work.

btw, any thoughts on webcasting? ie, targetting specific installed software on clients out on the net from a single server?