Response from Philip Copeman philip@...
BORLAND SAI GOGINT TO CREATE A LOT OF CRAP WITH ITS LATEST MICROSOFT
ORIENTED STRATEGIES.

THESE EMAILS ARE ALL THE MACHINATIOSN OF POEPLE BASICALLY PISSED OFF WITH
THE ROUTE THAT BORLAND HAS TAKEN

IF BORLAND GOES BACK TO SUPPORTING AND OPEN SOURCE DATA BASE THEN WE WILL
ALL BE A BETTER OFF> I AM WORRIED THAT THEY CNA NO LONDER BE TRUSTED>

---------

THE WORST MUST BE TO FIND YOURSELF LIEK PASTEL OR ACCPAC, OVER A BARREL
GETTING FALYED IN PUBLIC WITHW CRAPPY SOLUTION LIKE PERVASIVE SQL AND WITH
NOWHERE TO GO.

\

----- Original Message -----
From: "Johan van Zyl" <johan@...>
To: <philip@...>
Sent: 23/mm/2004 9:45 AM
Subject: XML

-----Original Message-----
From: Martijn Tonies [mailto:m.tonies@...]
Sent: 23 July 2004 09:20
To: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Firebird-general] XML (was: Web Administration of
Firebird)



> > "SP: Many developers have been looking for XML support and, while most
> > database systems can export or dump to XML, they are looking for native
XML
> > storage. Is it left to the developer to use a scripting or programming
> > language, or is this perhaps a feature of Firebird? What are your XML
> > features?"
> >
> > Native XML storage? What's that supposed to mean? Rubbish!
>
> Yes, it's a horribly misleading and confusing term. I think that when
> people say they want "native XML", what they really want is an XML column
> type that supports DOM, XPATH, or some other XML-specific operations.
> This is not a bad idea, IHMO.

Not a bad idea? Why not? What exactly does XML mean then? What
would you expect the engine to do with it? Validate it? Ask for a specific
node?

XML is human readable crap used to exchange data between systems
that don't need human readable crap with too much bandwidth to spend :-)

> "Native" seems to imply that XML is actually saved to disk as XML, which
> seems a) irrelevant, since data independence dictates that we should not
> care how it's saved to disk, and b) undesirable, since most of the things
> people would want to do with XML would perform much better with a parsed
> DOM, not straight text. But of course, this doesn't stop marketing
> departments from using the term to promote their clearly superior,
> next-generation technology. ;)

Ho hum... talking about a step back :-)

> The ability to manipulate XML data through SQL seems more useful than the
> ability to dump relational data as XML. Some DBMSes provide functions for
> projecting data into XML, but since there's no standard mapping from
> relations->XML, every DBMS may conceivably do it differently, and none of
> these variations may be what the application already needs. For instance,
> one common usage of XML is to send structured data to Flash, but if you
> have no control over the format required by the Flash movie, you're back
> to writing procedural code anyway, unless your DBMS's mapping function is
> highly configurable (and it isn't, typically). Not a big deal, IMO.

That's the problem... "XML" by itself isn't defined at all...


btw, I too use XML for some things - for example, configuration.
It's quite useful in those cases...

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com



Community email addresses:
Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
Yahoo! Groups Links






---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 2004/07/19

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 2004/07/19