RE: [xml-dev] basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?

[Anil Philip <goodnewsforyou@yahoo.com>]

My point had little to do with 'C'. I used it as a
point to be as basic as possible. To be more rigorous
I should have said Corba instead of 'C' and 'idl
struct' instead of 'C struct'.
My point: For example in Corba, when an idl struct or
interface changes, then it is a major headache - every
client of the server has to be updated. At the very
least they must recompile their stubs and redeploy
their applications with the new idl interface in the
case if a new method is added with no other changes to
the interface; if the struct changed - say a new field
was added (not a modification or deletion which would
understandably affect everyone), then the server must
continue supporting the old struct as well as the new
one. For clients that want to stay with the old struct
(avoiding client code changes which they might not
need) the old servants must coexist with the new
servants in the server. I have seen this in practice
when the wireless telecom I worked at previously -
their Corba server had several independent wireless
resellers use it to exchange data. There was a good
deal of duplication in code and work and resources.
This is what I understand by tight coupling - which
reduces maintainability.
I thought that XML promoted loose coupling and
flexibility. I wondered if it was really so.
Additionally you now have the 'feature' of parsing of
tags and also type-conversion to get at the data.
thanks,
Anil Philip
----


for good news go to http://members.tripod.com/~goodnewsforyou/goodnews.html


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com