Linking Saxon through to exist database

[Robert Koberg]

On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Liam Quin wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:23:00PM +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> My simple logic.
>> XSLT isn't very good at big files.
>> An xml database should be better.
>
> Often they are. On my Web site I use qizx or saxon right now,
> with prototypes using qizx with a database, or dbxml also
> with a database.  But my "big" files are all under 50 MBytes.
>
>> Saxon provides an xquery interface.
>> Why can't I use the two together?
>
> "Lorries are good for carrying freight. But a porsche is
> nicer to drive.  Why can't I use the porsche to pull my
> truck? :-) ;-)

This isn't a fair comparison.

How about this: It would seem like there are people (standard XQuery  
instructions) driving multiple trucks (processors) built to the same  
standard. When you hook it up to the same trailer (a hierarchical set  
of collections/folders that contain documents), the thing you are  
pulling turns out to be different.

At this point I am not even talking about extension functions that  
basically do the same thing in each processor, but live in different  
namespaces. (And really, how many people in the real world write only  
standards based XQuery?)

-Rob


>
>
>> I'd prefer Saxon since the exist xquery implementation
>> seems incomplete according to the documentation?
>
> I don't know how complete it is -- I admit I tend to
> use qizx rather than exist -- but if you stick with
> XQuery and avoid extensions as much as possible,
> you can easily experiment with moving between different
> implementations and see which one(s) you like best :-)
>
> Liam
>
> -- 
> Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
> _______________________________________________
> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk