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

Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!

• To: tblanchard@m...
• Subject: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:00:27 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <36C42E98-E594-11D6-BFB3-0030657E2F34@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

tblanchard@m... wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 01:45  AM, Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
>> XML tools are typically designed with a "view" mindset. The XML  
>> document is the interchange format of some data.
> 
> 
> Perhaps more accurately, *an* interchange format of some data.
> 
>> There is almost always logic, whether declarative or procedural,  
>> mapping to the persistence layer and the toolkits are designed to 
>> help  with that. I wouldn't really no how to go about creating a  
>> SQL-queryable "view" in C as an abstraction over a variety of SQL, OO  
>> and legacy data sources. Is there (for example) an open source 
>> project  or .NET component that would help me with that? Would I have 
>> to become  a deep magic expert at Postgres or SQL server versus 
>> spending a half  day with Expat?
> 
> 
> No, you could write a check.  Maybe read a book on n-tier architectures.
> 
> http://www.objectarchitects.de/ObjectArchitects/orpatterns/Appendices/ 
> products.htm
> http://www.apple.com/webobjects/

You asked how XML is an improvement over SQL. I told you. Now you bring 
in object-relational mapping as if I've never heard of it. If you wanted 
to know how XML is different than an object view of a relational 
database you should have asked that question, now how XML is different 
than SQL. I don't have any more time to spend on your uninformed rudeness.

  * http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200210/msg01079.html

>...
> ODBC is one of the lower level layers in portable O/R mapping.  All it  
> does is make different vendor api's look (mostly) the same.  O/R  
> mapping libraries allow you to create views on top of this layer that  
> are expressed in objects.  When fetching objects, you get both the data  
> and interesting behavior - rather than completely passive data like you  
> get with xml.

Completely passive *is the whole point of XML*. XML is a _reaction 
against_ active data. If you don't "get" why that's valuable then fine, 
you don't get it. But it isn't like the inventors of XML had never heard 
of objects. Many were object programmers.

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! LongLive the Browser Wars!)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
    • From: tblanchard@m...

• References:
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
    • From: tblanchard@m...

• Prev by Date: Comparison between SAX parser
• Next by Date: Re: Comparison between SAX parser
• Previous by thread: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
• Next by thread: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread