• From: Dmitry Turin <dev3os@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:01:41 +0200

Ken,

KN> SQL vendors themselves saw a need to support complex data types.

There exist so principle: "I'm too".
Procedural languages have 'struct' (in C, or 'record' in Pascal).
SQL: "I'm too".

KN> IBM, Informix and Oracle moved from relational to object-relational technology.

Procedural languages have control constructions ('for, do, while, until') -
SQL: "I'm too". Of course, it's easy to sell, what people already know !
There was a fork: to enter procedural constructions, or to prolong
development of declarative programming (to not be unfounded, i'm trying
to do this in slides #48-49, 64, 71 of http://sql50.euro.ru/sql5.11.1.ppt ).
This coping had fatal consequence - SQL had required encapsulation
with inevitability. "I'm too".

KN> That migration from relational to object-relational set the stage for being able
KN> to support XML with an SQL DBMS.

You were wanting to say, that it's impossible to support XML outside
OO-programming ??

KN> The leading SQL platforms are like a Swiss Army Knife, with a blade for
KN> supporting XML, XPath

Reasonable.

KN> and XQuery.

SQL was come short :)



Dmitry Turin
HTML6     (6. 5.3)  http://html60.euro.ru
SQL5      (5.11.1)  http://sql50.euro.ru
Unicode7  (7. 2.1)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
Computer2 (2. 0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru

• References:
  • RE: SQL instead of XQuery [offtopic]
    • From: noah_mendelsohn@u...
  • Re: SQL instead of XQuery [offtopic]
    • From: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>