[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Foster wrote:
> > and string APIs by and large won out - in part because they can proliferate
most rapidly in a wide variety
> > of host languages.
Miles Sabin wrote:
> Your general point here is well taken ... however, in this case we're
> discussing a deliberately Java-specific API.
XQJ is an API for Java programs, but that doesn't mean the format of the data
going across the wire has to be Java-centric.
If we pass strings between XQJ clients and XQuery servers, developers who've
been processing SQL using C++, PHP, Perl, and Python will often choose to
support XQuery by adapting existing scripts or classes.
On the other hand, if an XQJ client must emit abstract syntax trees (serialized
as Java byte arrays), we'll have to write Java programs for both ends of the XQJ
client - XQuery server link.
|
