On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Geoff Flight <[email protected]> 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 ------------------------------------
Flip side is that your thought was that XML is crap and only tossing around dbf tables and other files was better because you might get some compression out of it. The only reason why you said that was because your network could not stand the pressure of verbose xml so there was no value to it what so ever, or so it read. I tried to explain advantages of XML in actual practice as well as overuse of same practice. Both Ed and I gave examples but at best bin heads just say BINARY BINARY BINARY without giving examples on what your thinking / attempting / considering doing. I presented a graph that showed binary smoked in the latest M$ implementation but Ihave not downloaded it on my personal dev box which has VS2008 on it. Work is 2005. :( When I get time I'll look at what they did and attempt to explain how it was done. -- 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.
