Re: Development Trends in Web and Oracle

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1110673496.867880_at_yasure...

> Then you had better go back to Computer Science 100 and learn what XML
> is. XML tags are not the data. And not once have you addressed, I
> presume intentionally, the issue I originally raised which is the

Obviously XML ***TAGS*** are not data. Obviously. And it don't write like I'm a fool stating the obvious - you haven't mentioned the word "TAGS" up till now. The XML tags are not stored over and over again in the database - it is just the data in and data out can be a bit more verbose. But you cannot keep dismissing all the other benefits of XML, the other benefits I have reiterated over and over again in this thread. Over and above everything, an XML schema offers a very easy and efficient mechanism to validate data, and validate it one place, the XML schema. And the XML schema can be in or out of the database, or both. Unlike the relational model, dealing with XML doesn't force the database to perform data validity checks over and over again via stored procedures, triggers etc before, for example inserting a new row into a table. This is the overhead you won't accept as part of your "overhead" argument.

You argument is remains based on, as you put it, verbosity and quote "number of unnecessary bytes pushed across every inch of fiber and....". I say again, big deal.

And just in case it has missed you by, COLUMN NAMES like XML tags are not data either Daniel.

INSERT INTO employees(id,employeename,address1) VALUES (1,'fred','Berks')

You argument obviously extends to having an objection to the column names appearing above because you have to push this down a fiber or bit of copper too.

These "unnecessary bytes", whether XML or other, are not the bottleneck!

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1110673496.867880_at_yasure...
> Hexathioorthooxalate wrote:
>
>> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1110656209.214696_at_yasure...
>>
>>
>>>>Organisations have a growing requirement to store XML, like it or lump
>>>>it.
>>>
>>>Actually they don't. This statement is demonstratably pure rubbish.
>>>What organizations have is a need to store data. How that data is stored
>>>most efficiently is what is open for debate.
>>
>>
>> And if the XML is the data
>
> Then you had better go back to Computer Science 100 and learn what XML
> is. XML tags are not the data. And not once have you addressed, I
> presume intentionally, the issue I originally raised which is the
> huge number of unnecessary bytes pushed across every inch of fiber and
> copper.
>
> No point in responding further as you seemingly haven't learned that
> the first rule of holes is that when you are in one ... stop digging.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Received on Sun Mar 13 2005 - 03:04:26 CST