Re: XQuery question

"Bob Foster" <bobkfoster_at_attbi.com> wrote in message news:ZVGua.779449$3D1.429308_at_sccrnsc01...
> "Costin Cozianu" <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b9e86v$ie0us$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de...
[snipp]
> At the same time, there is a reasonable justification for using XML
> documents as temporary vessels for relational data. XML documents can
> encapsulate transactions during the real-world time delay between the
> customer's intention and absorbtion into a database. Lots of the world's
> business doesn't fit the model of an online 24/7 transaction processor. XML
> documents can capture views or reports from relational data in the
> intermediate stage between query results delivered to a program and graphics
> delivered to a human user.

Did I see the word 'transaction'? ;-)

Can I just say that the best 'temporary vessels for relational data' are relations.

I.e. local, client side, mostly non-persistent relations in a client side in-memory RDBMS.

> It is true that XML is sometimes applied where it is not appropriate. For
> example, if a server program performs a query and converts the results to
> HTML for delivery to the client, what is the point of converting the query
> results to XML and then transforming the XML to HTML? It is simply extra
> overhead. On the other hand, if the XML representation can be delivered
> directly to the client and the work of transforming the information to a
> graphical representation thereby offloaded from the server, the XML
> intermediary is justified. It is all well and good to assert that some other
> means of encoding might be more efficient, but XML exists, it has the
> necessary tools infrastructure and is supported by current client software.

Can I also say that the best way to logically transfer relational data from a server to a client is as relations.

Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services Received on Fri May 09 2003 - 12:44:30 CEST