[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Urr... that list I posted was in my queue specifically
because we have to worry about precisely that. For any
vendor that sells in different market tiers, it becomes
necessary to use different backend database system with
different price break options. In our case, we have
to support three different backend relational systems,
and if XML obligates us to datatype definitions, four.
len
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
I think Dare was merely saying that the motivating factors for XQuery
implementors to focus on interop are different from and less powerful
than the motivating factors for W3C XML Schema interop.
The experiences I've had in moving information and queries between
relational databases suggest to me that he may in fact be right. All of
it was SQL, yes... but since developers typically write code against a
particular backend at some point in the process, they don't worry about
whether that code will work just as well against any other backend.
With schemas, there's a much greater chance that you'll be sharing
schemas which then need to work in a wide variety of very different
environments.
If I get to make XQuery calls over the Internet to diverse exposed data
sources, then I might see a larger argument for general interop.
Somehow that seems unlikely as a general case.
|
