quote:

---

It is very nice to see a viewpoint that is different from what all the pundits are touting. This is a very good article but it does miss a couple points.XML is more transportable because everyone doesn't have to agree on a single way to structure the data. If I get three XML feeds from three different sources and they contain the same data in a different format I can use XSLT to restructure them into the format my application expects. It's easier and faster (read as: more cost effective) to write a transformation when we get a new data feed than it is to write a bunch of procedural code and recompile my application.In regard to the "flawed" OO paradigm, the real flaw is the people that don't know how to convert an object model to a data model. The people designing databases that can't fit an OO application are the same ones that can't design a DB for a procedural app. They are also the ones that blame the database server when something doesn't work.OO and relational work perfectly well together. Use OO code to get the data in a structured format and then put it in a relational database in an appropriate format. You then have good data that can be used in the OO world and is great for set-based reporting.BTW, OO is certainly not the end-all be-all of software development. Procedural programming is far from dead and appropriate in many areas (Event-driven GUIs for example).The Information Technology arena has no room for extremists. Use the right paradigm/methodology/tool for the job.Bryant E. Byrd, MCDBASr. SQL Server DBA/Systems AnalystIntellithought, Inc.bbyrd@intellithought.com

---

Thank you for your reply. In indicating that OO is "flawed" I did not intend to mean that it should be abandoned. However, the point still stands that OO is not based on sound, scientific principles. The relational model of data IS. Yet it is the OO pundits who seem to cry the loudest that there must be something wrong with the relational model and they are constantly touting something "new and improved" to replace it. I will not deny that the relational model MAY someday be replaced by something better, but that day hasn't arrived yet. By the way, I am well aware of the "benefit" of being a standard and address the issue in the article. XML is far from being a true standard and even if it becomes so, it will be a poor standard. I fully understand the history and impetus behind XML. I have put quite a bit of research into the subject over the past two years. What I learned is that XML was devised by those who have no understanding of data management fundamentals and their writings continue to prove it. XML as a data transport may be useful (if bloated and inefficient) but that is not the main problem I see with it. As I said in the article, the main problem is ignorant programmers who seem dead-set to take a 30 year leap backwards to use XML for data management. This is just plain stupid and there is really no excuse for it.You might call me an extremist. I suppose I have to plead guilty as charged. I believe that we, as data management professionals (not professional knob turners of any specific platform) have an absolute responsibiltiy to ensure the integrity of our company's data. I do not believe that there is room for compromise here. If at any point in the life of that data, integrity is compromised, you can't just magically impose it later. Further, I firmly believe that unless we keep our eye on the fundamentals of data management we will continue to waste vast amounts of money on that vendor merry-go-round. I, for one, am tired of being promised the world and delivered a stinking swamp!