Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 01:45 AM, Paul Prescod wrote:
>> XML tools are typically designed with a "view" mindset. The XML
>> document is the interchange format of some data.
> Perhaps more accurately, *an* interchange format of some data.
>> There is almost always logic, whether declarative or procedural,
>> mapping to the persistence layer and the toolkits are designed to
>> help with that. I wouldn't really no how to go about creating a
>> SQL-queryable "view" in C as an abstraction over a variety of SQL, OO
>> and legacy data sources. Is there (for example) an open source
>> project or .NET component that would help me with that? Would I have
>> to become a deep magic expert at Postgres or SQL server versus
>> spending a half day with Expat?
> No, you could write a check. Maybe read a book on n-tier architectures.
You asked how XML is an improvement over SQL. I told you. Now you bring
in object-relational mapping as if I've never heard of it. If you wanted
to know how XML is different than an object view of a relational
database you should have asked that question, now how XML is different
than SQL. I don't have any more time to spend on your uninformed rudeness.
> ODBC is one of the lower level layers in portable O/R mapping. All it
> does is make different vendor api's look (mostly) the same. O/R
> mapping libraries allow you to create views on top of this layer that
> are expressed in objects. When fetching objects, you get both the data
> and interesting behavior - rather than completely passive data like you
> get with xml.
Completely passive *is the whole point of XML*. XML is a _reaction
against_ active data. If you don't "get" why that's valuable then fine,
you don't get it. But it isn't like the inventors of XML had never heard
of objects. Many were object programmers.