RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:42 PM > > At 10:52 AM 04/03/02 +0000, Francis Norton wrote: > >Yes - you can implement XML interfaces between components in at > least four ways: > > > > pass an XML document > > pass an XML DOM > > pass a schema-equivalent programming language object (using > tools for automatic schema <-> class conversion) > > pass an event stream > > > >Our experiences suggest that  and  are best for > high-volume performance-critical server-side finance applications. > > You're buying some performance. You're giving up a lot of the > things that make XML worthwhile, in particular no binary > dependencies on any particular hardware, OS, or whatever. > Your call. But it feels like a lousy bargain, architecturally, > compared to . -Tim You're right that - are more tightly coupled (Using Larry Constantine's definition of coupling). That would lead to the conclusion that  would lead to a better design. However it's worth observing that any of  and  can easily be wrapped to appear as . I've been working with Sean McGrath on the XPipe system. My hope is that one outcome of the system will be that if one uses the framework to wrap serialization/deserialization for DOM or SAX processing, then the framework can locally optimize the linkage of adjacent pipeline components without losing the general ability to pass documents. David
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format