information from the incoming data, say, raw data in plain English. Therefore we have to use a sort of protocol the computer recognize for that purpose.
XML is the fashionable protocol/structure right now to do that. For example, a chunk of streamlined data says:
Mike bought a book "Professional XML Databases " written by Kevin Williams et al from amazon.com.
In one's mind, he can quickly pull out information and structured like:
Book: Professional XML Databases Author: Kevin Williams et al Buyer: Mike Seller: amazon.com ...
But for system application, it cannot analyze and categorize such a simple data in a way we do. You have to "sandwich" and group these data like
XML for it to understand. It is particularly effective when you have much more complicated data. Yes, I agree with you, that, it's not always
useful when you have a very simple data structure, just like EJB is not good to be used everywhere, they both have overheads.
I think XML is good for information exchange between different systems and makes things much easier.
Just my 2 cents,:)
-Daniel
Richard O. Hammer wrote:
Kenneth Sizer wrote:
Not to play devil's advocate, but...
Why is "Ideally all data, including that for static pages, is XML"?? What business/technical need is met by using XML for simple, static pages?
(and, in reality, "marketing says customers will think that's cool" is often a valid business need)
This touches something that is still an issue for me. I can't see why XML has become so broadly used.
An example I am seeing now is in configuration files. Configuration files in plain text (without XML) are difficult enough to comprehend, because typically they represent expressions in the ad hoc scripting language which the writers of an application have invented for the purpose of configuring that application. The syntax required for these files is typically as unforgiving as the syntax of any higher level language, but it is harder to learn because it is less well documented.
The vogue now seems to be to wrap these already confusing scripting statements in XML. It helps that there are parsers available for XML, and maybe that's the benefit which I still have not adequately valued. But once you've parsed off the XML, you still have to make sense of (parse) the language sandwiched within.
There have been times when I've been sitting in user-group meetings during the last few years, when, as seems to happen at least once per meeting on average, the speaker puts up a slide with some scripting instructions sandwiched in XML. I look at the slide. Then I look around the room at everyone else there, to see if anybody else there thinks this is nuts.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <GetReady happening="Here comes some XML!"> <OhGoody feeling="profound" language="XML"/> <body language="plain ole English"> <sentence> But it must be I am the one who is nuts. </sentence> <sentence> Because everyone else seems to take this in earnest. </sentence> </body> <closing> Rich </closing> </GetReady>
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
