[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The XML Database vendors will argue with you on that point, and they'll
also argue that for a language designed with the XML database niche in
mind, the WG certainly didn't seem to take into account the storage
models of most XML databases when the language was designed.
The XQuery implementation that I participated in was meant for
transforming messages in an orchestration engine. Seems to me that that
is probably the best niche for XQuery overall, but time will tell.
--
Tom Bradford - Virtuoso Technology Evangelist
OpenLink Software: http://www.openlinksw.com/
Personal Web Log: http://www.tbradford.org/
Michael Kay wrote:
>>The implementations are there, and
>>they're mostly good, so now the question to ask is why aren't people
>>using them in the numbers you were expecting?
>
>
> That simply isn't true. There are a number of fairly complete (and good)
> in-memory implementations, like Saxon, but that is definitely NOT the niche
> that XQuery is targeting. It aims to be a query language for large
> persistent XML databases, and there are no production-quality
> implementations in that space yet. All the implementations of XQuery today
> are either short on XQuery language functionality, or they are short on
> general database functionality.
>
> You also have to take into account that the pace of change in database
> technology is far slower than in some other areas. Much slower than
> programming languages, almost as slow as operating systems. Users are quite
> rightly conservative - databases cost lots of money. In other words, I doubt
> that most suppliers are expecting as rapid a take-up as you seem to imagine
> they are.
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
|
