[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:21 pm, Robert Koberg wrote:
> Or using a filesystem (XSL 1.0):
>
> <xsl:apply-templates
> select="document(concat($path-to, $identifier))"/>
>
> Is the problem that filesystems are not good enough yet? (I don't have a
> problem with win or linux, but I am not huge)
It's not that the filesystems themselves can't cope. They absolutely can.
The problem is that in Smaller enterprises, thousands of small files sends
people bizzerk. They just can't find anything and just can't cope.
When it is all wrapped up and stored in a database, it becomes more
manageable. They can sort things by trading partner, date, document
type etc. It becomes much easier.
> Do people really feel a file based system is more difficult to manage
> (what with versioning - CVS/SVN, and checkout.., stage versions for
> dev/qa/cert/live.., wherever/whatever) than a relational database hacked
> to accomodate (roundtrip) XML?
Yes.
I wouldn't say it is 'hacked', rather 'constructed'.
You can do high level revisioning when the documents are stored in a database,
with audit trails and so forth. And 'diffing' to track changes between
versions.
The results are a slightly smoother system than you would get with a
filesystem based one. But sql-databases are the tools of the modern world and
now that any small enterprise can afford one, the marriage of xml and sql is
inescapable.
David
--
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
|
