Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««1112131415

Is XML the Answer? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008 4:06 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 2:47 PM
Points: 132, Visits: 114
Klaar Chris, klaar. My point of view exactly.

In English "mark up" is something you do to documents, not databases.
Post #494576
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008 4:17 PM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:26 AM
Points: 891, Visits: 1,958
Stephen Hirsch (5/2/2008)
...
"I've never heard of the grave character. I'm going to look into it. I'm sure my peers in the other agency would appreciate an alternative to reading my XML files."

Sure. It's the lowercase key next to the "1" on US keyboards (other keyboards, YMMV)

It's also the unshifted tilde (~), unshifted it's the accent grave. IIRC, it's used in *nix BASH scripting, but I don't remember what for, but apparently it has quite a number of computer uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_accent#Computer-related. :P
Post #494579
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008 4:21 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 2:47 PM
Points: 132, Visits: 114
Sure, in Unix it does. I meant lexically, like in human languages.

If you're putting Unix commands into the data, then yes, you'd have to find something else. I don't think that that would occur very often, though.
Post #494580
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008 11:49 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:31 PM
Points: 1,296, Visits: 761
The place I work now use XML, a LOT. And a lot of the time in the wrong ways. Luckily we have finally agreed on a standard: Relational data in the database and as results, unless it can be proven that XML is the right/best way to do it. I.e. it is up to the developer in question to convince us during peer design reviews that he needs to use XML.
Post #495143
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:48 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 3, 2009 10:06 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 3
By creating an incredibly bigoted paper, you lost your credibility. When one chooses only that which supports their predetermined conclusion, they do an injustice to a good analysis.

If one properly chooses selected components of RDBMS, one can make exactly the same kind of claims. For example a RDBMS is not a good way to send information across the internet. Talk about a large footprint. If this is all one considers, one could conclude that RDBMS is something one should avoid.


BTW do you use Vista? If so then you are heavily invested in XML as it provides the underlying communications for Vista. I don't see a performance penalty. Vista appears to work pretty well.

You have some good points but you've selectively chosen those things at which XML is not good and reinterpreted others to fit your conclusion.

I'm amazed this article was printed twice.
So something so bad performs extremely well in proper real use.
Post #500978
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««1112131415

Permissions Expand / Collapse