Re: What is the logic of storing XML in a Database?

"Daniel" <danielaparker_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175023534.762441.188210_at_y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 27, 1:34 pm, "Aloha Kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuik..._at_yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:10 am, "Daniel" <danielapar..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Standardized XML transport formats are commonly used for representing
> > > messages.
> >
> > If "transport" and "messages" are merely implementation details of
> > some distributed database application,
>
> But of course they're not, they have nothing really to do with
> distributed database application, nor is it desirable that they
> should. Consequently they have nothing really to do with dbms theory.
>

There are three things you can do with data: process it, store it, and transport it.
These three are all interrelated.

> > then it can be argued that a
> > design that is not burdened by XML would be much more effective.
>
> The current best practice seems to be for messages to be encoded in a
> text format, be self contained, and be validatable against some schema
> representation. The less the endpoints are coupled, the better. XML
> appears to be the most widely embraced format that fullfils these
> requirements, and widespread adoption has its own benefits, much as in
> the case of SQL. There's also some interest in other formats, such as
> JSON. But of course, this is outside the scope of database theory,
> and it's understandable that you have no interest in the subject.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
Received on Tue Mar 27 2007 - 21:35:07 CEST