Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote: > 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 If they're just passing the information within a single program or a single pipeline (think a stack of SAX filters), then [2-3-4] make sense. Once you cross that boundary (which can be kind of blurry), then you're completely right that  offers the most flexibility by far. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
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