On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Charlie Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, the real Charlie will speak up for a moment. > > XML does suck at data transmission and storage. Period. Sorry for all you > XML enthusiasts out there, it's just the plain simple truth. -------
Matter of scale here. XML storage for small things is fine. Small being difficult to pin down here. XML transmission is great. Within my own servers or out to the world and any type of recipient. Size of transmission is the key. Are you pushing 50 rows of fifty columns or 50 rows of 3 columns? Are the columns chapters in of a book, articles in a magazine or could they be lists of id-keys and lookup data text? It is all in what you are moving. > XML did not catch on because of any "technical performance" or "efficiency" > reason. It caught on because of these 3 facts: > > 1) gave a common interchange "structure" and a way to "save face" > (explained below) ------------------------------------- Best reason so far. > 2) it gave a new area where money could be made --------------- hahahahaha you are pulling at straws here. $$ could be made by vendors that added easy tools to their systems to use XML easier could add it as a part of the next upgrade. They could also take in XSD, <http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/schema_why.asp> > 3) PHB's could "read" XML so they thought that it was "naturally" an easy > standard ---------------------------------------- This was the funniest statement and your proof below was just as far out of whack. XML works. XML is querryable and in a large document with many line items in it this is an asset. It is not parceing a string for a location. It works the node to see if this element hs children and if what the parent is. XML is not the raw data, it is just a holder for a data abstraction. Yes you could save that base layout in ram to a text file and call it a data file but that would be few and far between it's daily use. ------------------ > XML is rotten for efficient data storage. It is rotten for data > transmission. The area it shines is the area it was meant to shine: data > exchange between disparate systems. I'll have to concede that the reason it > shines in data interchange is the fact that pretty much everyone adopted > the standard. But closed/proprietary vendors probably would not have > adopted it if they didn't think they could make money from it - a quirk of > the computer industry. Personally, I think it'd be great to get standards > adopted in their designed roles based on technical merit, not how much > hype-cash can be gotten. ------------------------------- XML is rotten for data storage is a broad statement. For some things it is a great fit. For thinking in database and table mindset you are probably correct. For lists of things that have multiple different data subsets it may be just fine insted of multiple tables to jon against all determined on a parameter column. I like XML data storage for a preset list, say your going to message to a process to get a rate on " weather outside, ship this package rate, current stock price,....." These are push and catch processing in my mind. So I have a preset XML doc that is predefined for all things "weather, shipping, stocks,.." and I put my relevant data for my request. I pass that over to your system and you put into a response doc what my answer is. I catch the answer and everything is great. I don't have to care what your system is, just that our data in and out is consistent. > It's default adoption as "web service" data is not > good IMO. Because of it's size, structure, etc, things "run" slower. And > then, by doing that, the door is opened for "amazing benchmarks" (well, > propaganda) from vendors like MS stating how great their special, > proprietary, blah blah scheme can outperform other solutions (that use > XML). Cleary, from some of the traffic on this list, there are those all > too eager to swallow the MS-pill without thinking. Not thinking even a > little bit (of course, MS Certs don't really encourage thinking do > they....<sigh>). --------------------------------- Funny how the little fish in the pond, IBM, SAP tend to see things from a different POV. Granted they don't see things from a singular aspect like many of us do. I have been following SOA for some time now and see that as the standard to follow. You want to make an EOM process? Make it a service. Why tie yourself into just a desktop to do your processing? Why not have the app run from a phone instead? > Still people don't understand XML. Some say it's "queryable".... LOL... > wait a sec... I had to get off the floor. It still makes me laugh to hear > that a great "benefit" of XML is that it's queryable. XML is no more > queryable than any other defined data format. CSV files are queryable. HTML > files are queryable. OMG!!!! even.... DBF FILES are queryable. Holy cow > Batman!!! All these XML pundits need to be introduced to DBFs! ------------------------- Sure..... I had the option of dealing with a XML object that when written out to the server was in excess of 500 meg. I could load up that file into the DOM and tell you not only how many bills were there and to whom but I could itterate through it for totals by salesman. More importantly that could be passed to your CPA and they could do the same thing for your small company and do your taxes without having to come in and pull hundreds of reports. Now taking Linq to XML and doing lamda connections to Linq to SQL you can now query from your XMl and join to your database in the same query. That is so massive in capabilities you don't even have a clue because you shun one standard today. > And since we're talking "real world" I do want to point out that since XML > has become so widely adopted, I do think it is important that all vendors > have ways to move their data into it. Why? Because of future conversion > issues. When MS finally dies (please let it be in my lifetime), being able > to take Word/SQL Server/Excel/blah blah files, get them into XML, and then > back into the software-of-the-day will be important and a great boon to > consumers. But it is stupid for vendors to use XML as their actual data > storage format. One example I know of if is Open Office. I'm not sure what > is in the current 3.0 version, but I recall the 2.0 (maybe 1.1?) started > storing docs using an "XML" approach. The result: much longer load/save > times than MS Word. I can understand why OO wanted to encourage XML - it is > and open standard after all - but they hurt themselves because most > proprietary vendors define binary storage formats for speed/efficiency. ------------------------------------------ The ability to take complex spreadsheets and save as type XML is fantastic for heavy excel based companies. I was tolds that my next project is to take wod docs and pull out similar data from tables within. With XML it is straight forward. Oh and you don't have to have a local copy of that engine the doc was create in. No virus from macros either. > Digression: right now, the "open" standard for word processing documents is > ODF All computer professionals should be recommending only WP software that > can convert documents into ODF. Any vendor not supporting it should be > dropped. As other open standards become available, the same should be done. > The "safest" way to get companies on the correct track is to simply get > them to drop MS Office and use Open Office. There may be some other open > suites, but MS Office simply should not be used if the long-term is > important to a company. ------------------------------------------------ Sorry but Office is a great arry of products. > Back to the topic: Partly because of "XML", web pages today truly suck. The > ones that I find are tolerable are the ones that are simply publishing > articles (which, interestingly enough, is pretty much what the "Web" was > designed to do). Bank sites suck. "Business sites" suck. And now that I've > been seeing more and more .aspx (.Net?) sites up, it's getting worse and > worse. Some idiots apparently think that when I want to get data, that I'll > be happy seeing 10% of it at a time. And if I want to resort or do special > processing on the data I'm asking for I gotta "refresh" my request, taking > more and more time. Freaking morons. But hey, I'm just a consumer trying to > get information and do analysis. I'm sure I don't know what I want to do as > much as the, uh, web page gurus do. And it's almost laughable to see how > some developers get excited when they get their web page working... just > working... while the performance for every operation by the user is > multiple-seconds (or way worse under load). Sheesh this industry is going > down the drain. Maybe now that SSL was hacked some folks may start > re-thinking their "web-everything" mentality.... but I'm probably too > optimistic. ----------------------------------------- Some design is poor and still in use today. Others are fantastic. So I don't say that it all sucks. I say that it hs been improving over time better than all other industry. > Next, I'd like to comment on the concern about using XML when "both ends" > of the pipe are controlled. ----------------------------- My company has web sites for applications as well winform apps that need some of the same data. Push the data the same so I can bend from one to another without writing the same blasted code every time I need it again and again. I need a list of States for my dropdown comes to mind. Something that will be a lot of app GUI environments. > Lastly, as you can tell, living through decades of the travails of various > "industry paradigm shifts" (so-called) I've gotten pretty jaded. ------------------------------ You act like an old man Charlie. You are well passed jaded. :-> > It seems > very few computer professionals really understand the actual workings of > computers any more. They want to take the easy way out, collect their > paycheck, and go their merry way. To hell with technological advancement, > to hell with consumers, to hell with what is right and wrong. XML in and of > itself is good for what it was designed for. But as usual, proprietary > vendors and self-serving individuals have tried to push it where it doesn't > belong. This is what happens to every "new" idea in the computer industry. > We can't do much about the self-serving individuals, but as concerned > "professionals" we certainly could and should do what we can to speed the > end of proprietary software solutions/vendors. If they didn't exist, true > computer industry advancement may start happening again. ------------------------------------------ I think your prejudice stops you from moving forward the way the rest of the industry is flying by. This lock to old school technology as the only answer is self-serving as well. If you increased your tolerance to these new ideas you would probably see the merit they carry. I am not a fan of everything in XML, just where it seems fit. That area is pretty wide today and I am sure it will be replaced by a better alternative in the future. Till then use what is proven, good, and shareable. Peace. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer First Horizon Bank Memphis TN 901.246-0159 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
