Call me crazy, but I've just never liked the idea of storing XML in the database in any form. The first form of normalization states that each column should hold an atomic value and XML is anything but that. Maybe I'm old-school, but if I wanted to store a set of complex, nested data; I would use a series of tables with separate columns for each piece.
If I was forced to handle XML, then that seems like work for a higher tier like a CF or Java application. At my job we do use XML to communicate between our internal apps (CF, ASP, Java, PowerBuilder), our customer's external apps, and even to pass large amounts of data to stored procs, but all that happens at the application level. We don't store XML in the database ever. I like Microsoft's ingenuity there, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Am I just stuck in the mud, or is this really one of those things that SQL server CAN do, but shouldn't necessarily do? ~Brad -----Original Message----- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:16 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: MS SQL XML Datatype > So is there any advantage or reason I should be storing XML > data in a XML field vs. varchar?? Yes, the same reason you use other specific datatypes in SQL. The database can validate your data, for example. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:282499 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
