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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: "Guillaume Lebleu" <gl@b...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:37:36 -0700
• Organization: Brixlogic Inc
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206889@h...> <417EEF54.6040004@p...> <e3a5cb2c0410261854749cbffd@m...>

I don't understand this focus on XML as serialization format.

Isn't the most important thing about XML that we have:
- cross-platform standards like XML Schema, RELAX, etc. to define tree
structures
- generic parsers/validators/APIs to process those trees ?

At development/QA time, XML serialization is great since it's WYSIWYG, which
is much better than any binary format like ISO8583 (used in POS/ATM apps)
which
require a viewer for debugging (hence the question: is my bug in my program
or in the viewer?).

But once in production, why not switch my Serializer to serialize to YAML,
XML
Binary or what have you (even keep DOM objects for ex. for in-process
communications), as long as both service consumers and producers
agree? I could keep my application that receives DOM objects or SAX events
but have actually something sent on the network that looks totally different
from XML.

I know this would greatly help performance.

Anyway, my point is: XML is more about metadata than serialization.

Guillaume

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema Evolution
• Next by Date: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Previous by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread