Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:mhvrl0tol9qii69mi0p2p5is836p69823l_at_4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:43:34 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In one of the other discussions, XML was listed as one of the bad things
> >perpetrated by the object oriented people. And I've seen a lot of
> >discussion in here about using XML instead of a DBMS.
> >
> >I've never had the opportunity to get up close and personal with XML. I
> >went to a lecture on XML once, and my impression was... Neat! They've
> >extended the concept of self-describing data to data in transit as well
as
> >data inside a DBMS. I'll confess that I never even thought of getting
rid
> >of the DBMS. After I've heard that idea, I'm puzzled.
> >
> >If I compare XML to something like comma separated values, I think that
XML
> >is a good way of representing a wide variety of data. And I think it's a
> >pretty good way of exchanging data, too, even if it isn't very concise.
I
> >imagine that you can make it more concise by defining a record type, and
> >then supplying a stream of records, but that's more XML than I really
know.
> >
> >But XML instead of DBMS? The mind boggles. You have to be able to
> >represent data in order to manage it. You have to be able to exchange
data
> >in order to manage it. And you have to be able to decode it. But that's
> >just the beginning of data management. There's a whole lot more that a
DBMS
> >has to do, and it seems to me that XML doesn't even begin to address all
the
> >issues.
> >
> >It would be like trying to put a capsule on the moon by using a baseball
> >bat!
>
> ISTM that XML is the answer to the question all of us have asked at
> one time or another: "Wouldn't it be nice to have a standard format to
> shift data between systems without having to re-invent the wheel every
> time?"
>
> Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer.

It's better than comma-quote with a header row for data exchange, so from that perspective it is progress. It doesn't force data into first-normal form, so that's progress. It's big and bulky, so not appropriate for every task, but it also isn't always the "wrong answer". Slow progress, but progress none-the-less. --dawn

> Lemming
> --
> Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Received on Sat Oct 02 2004 - 20:53:02 CEST