Hi Andrew,
You are right, there are uses for the XML format.
I have written perl parsers for the DEF format instead, as the XML format gave
files that was too big. I am talking about complete exports of a whole system.
How big will an XML-export of ITSM get?
Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011)
Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13):
* RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
* RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs.
Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se.
>>> Why use XML definition files?
>>> It just adds a tremendous amount of tags
>>> resulting in enormous files...
>
> Because it's awesome, that's why!
> I can extract (nearly all) the workflow and forms from an entire server and
> I can parse them with xpath.
>
> That is a HUGE capability. I've found and fixed some of the gnarliest bugs
> of my carreer doing just that.
>
> I don't give a hoot about the file size (within reason). I DO care about
> being able to quickly write scripts to descend mountains of workflow and
> find exactly what I need, and even modify it without ever needing to write
> a custom parser.
>
> For instance ... say you've got a few hundred filters calling webservice
> endpoint A and that needs to be endpoint B now ... it's a snap with xml
> export and a perl script.
>
> -Andy
> DEF is great for purely importing and exporting - XML is better for editing
> content manually. Personally I use XML on occasions I need to edit the
> definitions and DEF only if I intend to use it as is for import later
> without having to edit anything.
>
> Cheers
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Misi Mladoniczky
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 1:33 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Export definitions options ==> Bug or feature??
>
> Hi,
>
> Updating XML is much more complicated. On DEF files you can just append
> additional objects at the end.
>
> To update XML in a correct way you should parse and validate the complete
> XML-file before you add the extra content and save it to disc again. This
> would be a client exercise, and it would use a lot of memory and process
> power. I think that the creation of the XML is done on the server today
> which
> makes it even more complex to do.
>
> Why use XML definition files? It just adds a tremendous amount of tags
> resulting in enormous files...
>
> Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011)
>
> Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13):
> * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
> * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs.
> Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se.
>
>> I was thinking the same thing. The increased challenge of exporting to xml
>> vs how many people export to xml probably wasn't worth the effort.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:16 AM, LJ LongWing <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Joe,
>>> Consider it a feature :)....
>>>
>>> First line of an XML def export is
>>>
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><root>
>>>
>>> If appending more to the end, you can't add another <?xml in the middle
>>> because you feel like it, so you can't just 'append' the same way to an
> XML
>>> as you do to a def....to append to an XML you would need to not put the
>>> same first line in what you are appending, and you would need to edit the
>>> original file and pull off the last line of '</root>'...whereas when
> doing
>>> an append for regular def, you can just add things to the end...
>>>
>>> So....while none of this is saying that it couldn't be overcome and do
>>> appends on XML....it's not as straight forward and easy as def...so I
> guess
>>> they chose to design it this way, which makes it a feature :)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:07 AM Joe D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> If a feature I wonder what the benefit of it might be as I do not see
>>>> one. Which makes me think it's a bug.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you select workflow objects to export, and select the export type as
>>>> .DEF, all is good. You can export your objects & create the export file
> and
>>>> then if you missed exporting some just select those, export again, and
> you
>>>> get Append and Overwrite as two modes in which you can export so you can
>>>> Append to your existing file. HOWEVER, if you choose to export your
>>>> definitions as an XML, and later choose to export some more, you do not
> get
>>>> an Append option. So your only option is to select all the objects you
> want
>>>> to including what you missed, and then Overwrite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this a bug? Or "claimed" as a feature? If a feature, what is the
>>>> benefit of this design?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed this on 8.1.2 but something tells me it might have been a
>>>> pre-existing bug or feature since the inception of export formats as
> .xml.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
>>>
>>> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
>>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ___
>> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
>> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
