[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:10:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <015901c2cc63$be23c8c0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <20030204120457.4f6c3eea.code_martial@s...><p04330103ba65690e85d6@[192.168.254.4]> <oprj2r11daezizxn@s...><015901c2cc63$be23c8c0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 02:40:27 +1100, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...> 
wrote:


>
> Databases servers manipulate data in some binary structure.

Uhh, XML database servers manipulate XML :-)


> that middleware  should talk some optimized proprietary code to its 
> (tightly-coupled) server,  with the interface
> to the Database at the server being document objects (or whatever XML-ish 
> thing is needed.)

Well, the problem I see (and I admit I see it on the horizon) is that XML's 
value proposition is that it is general-purpose, vendor-neutral, platform- 
neutral, language-neutral, etc.  XML technologies are being used to 
displace the "optimized proprietary code", because it is so much cheaper to 
harness Moore's Law to get performance out of generic tools than to write 
optimized proprietary code that actually works for the intended purpose.  
So, XML is in some sense becoming a victim of its success  The solution of 
simply using XML as the interchange format between proprietary systems is 
becoming less viable. XML is being thrown into the breach to replace 
proprietary systems, and it demonstrably works well in the proof of 
concepts.  Now it's being deployed in the Big Time, and will be asked to 
meet high performance and scalability requirements as well as 
interoperability requirements.

> Which makes me wonder whether one of the value of binary formats is to 
> provide a greater range of solutions to developers of tightly-coupled, 
> probably-proprietary  protocols?

The problem is that once you start drinking the open standards / vendor 
neutral / interoperability nectar, it's hard to go back to the proprietary 
stuff when the headaches start :-) If you've put XML everywhere as an 
interop tool, it's both bad business and technologically short-sighted to 
rip it out and put proprietary protocols in place.  And if the customer is 
happy with the proprietary stuff, what's the point of XML?   It would be 
*nice* if there were open standard(s) for things like XML subsets that are 
easier to parse and/or alternative serializations of the infoset that are 
more efficient to exchange over standard protocols.  I suspect that a lot 
of people are reinventing the same wheels, and it would be nice to see 
standards in this area. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • GZIP is an HTTP standard
    • From: "Owen Walcher" <news@o...>

• References:
  • Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Tahir Hashmi <code_martial@s...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by Date: RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Previous by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: GZIP is an HTTP standard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread