[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> You asked how XML is an improvement over SQL. I told you.
I must have missed it. I don't see an improvement. Its a request
written in a syntax that is applied to a store and gets you some
passive data in a particular structure. Whether the thing is rows and
columns or nodes and arcs doesn't seem too relevant. Some amount of
the store's structure is revealed in the query and thus leakage occurs
regardless.
> 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 know how its different. I don't get why its any better. Because
whether you say XQL or SQL its still a QL on passive data.
> I don't have any more time to spend on your uninformed rudeness.
I'm sorry you found it rude. It wasn't meant to be. And as far as
uninformed, YTF do you suppose I'm here asking questions on this list?
What else is it for if not to work on understanding the XML
applications and motivations?
> 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.
You'd never know it from the rhetoric. So why passive? What was wrong
with intelligent rather than dumb information? Because I've been at
this long enough to recognize a circle closing when I see it and I
think things are moving in the wrong direction.
|
