On Jan 15, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Geoff Flight wrote:
> When I simply questioned that XML may not necessarily be appropriate
> at
> times your response to me was a tad less than generous. Like
> Stephen, your
> replies were definitely in the blinkered 'evangelist' corner. My only
> 'mission' was to get an answer to a genuine question. What I got in
> response
> was mainly dogma
Sorry, but that's pure crap.
You spoke of XML traffic potentially taking down your internal LAN. I
suggested that they problem in this case was your LAN, and not the
XML. That's not dogma; that's a reality check. I gave you several
legitimate use cases for XML, but you continued to insist that XML was
"useless" and "pointless" without explaining why. You even claimed
that a binary format was optimal for a web service, which is flat-out
hostile to anyone consuming that service. All in the name of avoiding
XML; that sure sounds like religious fervor to me.
I don't use XML for everything; in fact, I'm leading efforts here at
Rackspace to replace XML-based services (SOAP, XML-RPC) with ReSTful
services that use JSON instead. It has many of the benefits of XML
(plain text, readable) in a much more compact format. It is much
better suited for a transmission format than XML, and has the added
benefit of being directly understandable in Javascript clients.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
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.
