Im not discounting that it is a standard. What I am debating is why it is THE standard at times when it seem both unnecessary and counter-productive. Some people seem so welded to XML they seem unable to think outside that boundary. My question is (and remains) that in a CLOSED system (ie I am not sharing the data with all and sundry - only with apps I have written) why would I use XML? Its vastly less efficient and there is no reason to use it as an interchange format which is after all its original reason for its existence.
I seem to have gotten under some people's skin on this topic - a bit like when an innocent child asks an adult 'why?' to a difficult question and the adult doesn't know the answer. I didn't start off to do this. I asked a genuine question. I have not used XML before. I've never had a need and therefore I asked the question. The replies have been many and varied and have been both insulting and derogatory and occasionally supportive. What they have not been however is helpful or even moderately useful. AS time goes on I am left with the unmistakeable conclusion that most people don't know the answer to this question. They use XML either because they always have, because its 'the way its done' or because its new therefore it must be good. XML is good. Binary is good. Performance is good. Throughput is good. Putting all of them into perspective is what good software engineers do - apparently. 'When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike yearwood Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2009 12:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ProfoxTech Digest, Vol 68, Issue 64 Geoff If you're going to start without understanding that XML is a standard, we'll be unable to continue. Please note the number of uses of the word standard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML It came about to reduce the flavor-of-the-minute-non-standard styles everybody and his dog comes up with in the name of "efficiency" which just ends up making for more conversion and less performance overall. > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:59:05 +1030 > From: "Geoff" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > But you describe XML as a 'standard' approach and call binary non-standard. > By who's definition? My question remains as to why use a format that is > 20times as big as a binary format when there is no real reason. Converting > to XML at the client end isn't hard - it is trivial if that is required. My > question revolves around the transmission of data and why use a verbose > format when binary will do. And why use a verbose format (XML) when its > effect on network and application performance has the potential to be quite > adverse. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Mike yearwood > Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2009 4:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance > >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:08:38 +1030 >> From: "Geoff Flight" <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [NF] M$ is pushing ahead for performance >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Never having really written such an app Ive still wondered why you would > use >> XML vs binary. Why would you use a verbose data description in a situation >> where bandwidth is relatively limited? That said, I now need to write a > web >> service and that has convinced me to use binary and not XML. Everyone > raves >> over XML and frankly, I don't get it. IN a closed architecture I see no >> point at all. >> > > Hi Geoff > > There is the benefit of using standard approaches, something far too > often excluded from these discussions. Only a few years ago I saw a > non-standard approach come awfully close to being released into an > environment where it would have killed patients, so I'm really down on > that. > > You could roll your own means of minimizing the data but then it will > only work for you in your "closed" system. Few systems remain closed. > Then you have to add code to convert your closed data to an unclosed > format - perhaps XML - and it's unlikely your code to prepare an XML > file is optimized and free from error. Those both amount to > performance problems, and may even result in bad data. > > Mike Yearwood > Microsoft MVP 2008 - Visual FoxPro > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
