[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: What does SOAP really add?
As others have already mentioned, this functionality already exists in current database implementations without the ugliness which you suggest. SQLXML 3.0 templates allow one to create parametrized queries against a relational DB (SQL Server) and retrieve XML from a URL. http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/05/SQLXML3/SQLXML3.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml07162001.asp PS: It saddens me that intelligent people are wasting cycles pontificating on the pie in the sky that is the semantic too-fantastic-to-ever-be-real web instead of applying themselves to solve problems that exist today in ways that benefit the average user and the average developer. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Some of us can remember anything, whether it happened or not. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > -----Original Message----- > From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...] > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:12 PM > To: Paul Prescod; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: What does SOAP really add? > > > Hi Paul, > > Paul said: > ----- > Please consider the comments relating to SQL over the > Web at the bottom > > of this document: > > > > http://www.prescod.net/rest/rpc_for_get.html > > > > Didier replies: > Creating a mapping from URL to sql is an avenue. It offers > the opportunity to reduce the URL complexity. However we may > have difficulties to offer a rich expression media for > queries (in the context of relational DB) as is sql. We can > also use the kind of queries previously mentioned in this > list but the problem now is a lack of standardization in the > parameter naming and some inherent bogus in the URL syntax. > if we express a sql expression as: > http://mydomain.com?sql=select+name+age+address+from+client+wh ere+age=25 we have a URL breakdown. It implies that we have to encode the query with special characters. If we use special characters then the query is harder to express than with the actual HTTP POST containing an xml document (used to encode the sql query in a natural way). XML is a lot more versatile and expansible than URLs. And this is where the catch 22 reside. If we use a mapping then we no longer have sql. I have to admit that this not an easy issue to resolve. But overall, I agree with you that simple queries like for instance search queries, can be very well expressed with a URL and the document returned formatted with something like RDF or with topic map specifications. However, this would provide a common interface to the search engines and as you know and how Michael Porter explained it some years ago, this will put more power in the hands of the customers and less in the hands of the vendors. And this is probably the biggest issue. Vendors will always try to create barriers of entry and resist to being reduced to a commodity. SOAP reduces the power of the clients and we're back to square one, Microsoft embraced and expanded and fought hard to keep its monopoly. And it serves the IBM game plan by practicing a divide to conquer and balancing the power between Sun and Microsoft. I would prefer to see Google announcing that they are now supporting RDF or topic maps than having them announce that they support SOAP. cheers Didier PH Martin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
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
|