Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Actually, we do. When we have a COM object passing data to another program, it works fine. When we have a customer with a technical person who acts as the authoritative contact for the duration of the project, it works fine. If we have a reasonably well-understood data standard and a lot of users, migrating from comma delimited to XML is fine. When we want to get away from byte counting, and need to check some co-occurrence constraints, we can add some Schematron assertions, and it works fine. There are alternatives to all of the above and case by case, we use any or all of them. It is the assumptions about HTTP ubiquity that are troubling; so as long as XML doesn't directly depend on HTTP, that's OK too because there are cases for which HTTP.... works fine. Human in the loop systems can work with XML just fine, but the customer pays for there time. No size fits all. Some sizes fit most but not comfortably. It's the web services that we need to work predictably and will have to be quite cautious about how and where we use them. Today, they look like a good idea for low frequency, coarse transactions outside the real time loop. We have plenty of those too, but they aren't mission critical where I would limit that term to the life-preserving operations. On the other hand, something like neighborhood watch, court systems, forensic systems, these are good candidates because they tend to not be co-located and often have multiple vendors we need to work with because we do not try to provide all of the possible products for a market (not a reasonable choice). len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] Admittedly, this is essentially a matter of perspective, not technology. It might be hard to look at the code for a real system and determine whether it was "object centric" or "XML centric." Furthermore, the "XML is just a serialization format for my well- defined objects" approach has a lot of good use cases. There ain't no WAY I'm going to try to persuade Len Bullard not to use it for the kinds of highly-designed, tightly-coupled mission-critical systems one hopes that the military and public safety agencies deploy.
|
