[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: almost four years ago....
On Jun 15, 2001 12:17am, HOST@X... wrote to ALL: > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:17:46 -0700 > From: XML Everywhere <host@x...> > Subject: Re: almost four years ago.... > To: xml-dev@l... > XML has to be the most flexible > technology I have ever used, and > unfortunetely, any flexible tool can become a noose. > Thus there will always be complaints about > how XML has become unwieldy, > and likewise there will always be those who > use the technology simply because it > solves a real problem. Interesting comments. In my opinion, as the saying goes; "the more things change, the more it remains the same." In my view, the only good XML has done is to highlight the idea of a standard nomenclature for world-wide (platform-independent) communications. This is good, at least for us, we think it will help increase our product marketability by exposing our server connectivity using XML/SOAP to the outside world. To achieve this, complexity and a massive learning curve is required. No doubt, in my view, increase process overhead is now realized to make it all work. But its the same old process. As with anything new, change is inevitable and typically when redundancy (like overhead, slowness) sets in, you start to see the same redundancy reductions ideas to emerge. Soon someone will develop a XML p-code compiler or design XRISC (XML Reduced Instruction Set) simply because someone will get the incredible bright idea that: <ORDER> <PRODUCTID>...</PRODUCTID> <QUANTITY>...</QUANTITY> <CUSTOMERINFO>...</CUSTOMERINFO> </ORDER> augmented with all the definition overhead, etc., can be transformed and delivered in some reduced format! <g> I had a debate with one of my engineers. He wanted to change our fixed structure configuration file that our server reads to an XML format. Good idea, flexible, allows easy expandability for the future. But I don't agree that it will improve server performance or will it reduce our Q&A. In fact, it will be worst. For example: ReadConfiguration(TConfigurationData &cf); will now have to be expanded to read each supported field represented in the configuration, individually. Internally, I don't think it is a good idea. However, to expose our external interfaces, this is probably ok. Not because it better than before, but it if allows us to "advertise" to potential customers and partners "You can access our system using XML/SOAP", then I think its good. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm certainly no XML expert. :-) Hector Santos, President Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.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
|