Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: james anderson <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Rys <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:39:33 +0200
Michael Rys wrote:
> Dear James
> > 2. anyone can give a rundown on why they went for a diff technique
> > rather than a direct pat specification with a replacement value?
> The scenarios that we tried to address were mid-tier caches that want to
> synchronize with the database. Direct pat[h] specifications with replacement
> values would not fit that well into these scenarios and would go more
> towards an update language that would require a query language.
that sounds more reasonable. i suppose i'd have to have read the
scenariour to know how these caches were expected to behave, but i'm
still surprised that one would want to work out a yet another addressing mechanism.
> While XPath
> could cover some aspects, we did not want to invent something in that space
> before XML Query and its relationship to update languages is clear.
well, sometimes it's hard not to.
> Please note that people can design their own XML update language in
> conjunction with the OpenXML XML rowset provider inside T-SQL stored
i was wondering 'cause i had done an update mechanism against an object
database and found (for the large object case which im mentioned in the
previous message) ended up using path-based adressing...