RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
My point had little to do with 'C'. I used it as a point to be as basic as possible. To be more rigorous I should have said Corba instead of 'C' and 'idl struct' instead of 'C struct'. My point: For example in Corba, when an idl struct or interface changes, then it is a major headache - every client of the server has to be updated. At the very least they must recompile their stubs and redeploy their applications with the new idl interface in the case if a new method is added with no other changes to the interface; if the struct changed - say a new field was added (not a modification or deletion which would understandably affect everyone), then the server must continue supporting the old struct as well as the new one. For clients that want to stay with the old struct (avoiding client code changes which they might not need) the old servants must coexist with the new servants in the server. I have seen this in practice when the wireless telecom I worked at previously - their Corba server had several independent wireless resellers use it to exchange data. There was a good deal of duplication in code and work and resources. This is what I understand by tight coupling - which reduces maintainability. I thought that XML promoted loose coupling and flexibility. I wondered if it was really so. Additionally you now have the 'feature' of parsing of tags and also type-conversion to get at the data. thanks, Anil Philip ---- for good news go to http://members.tripod.com/~goodnewsforyou/goodnews.html __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.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