|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better"
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It was persistent while you were working on it. Then you disposed of it.
If you don't like the word "persistent", then come up with a different term. Perhaps "active"? Whatever...
Your XML won't care, but both you and your application probably should
because the data model impacts performance and efficiency. Our core
question here is focused on proper modeling of the XML structures --
whether they should be normalized or not.
If the XML is transient, then it probably ought to be normalized, because it offers the best optimization for transformation.
If the XML is persistent, then application requirements ought to
dictate the need for normalization. If the XML will be operated on by
only one application, then the structure probably ought to be optimized
for that specific application. If the XML will be operated on by more
than one application, then the structure probably ought to be
normalized.
Anne
On 10/4/05, Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/05, Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps "storage" is the wrong word, because it implies persistence to some
> type of data store, but the basic concept is valid. Either the XML is
> persistent or it is transient. If the XML is persistent, then the
> application works directly on the XML. If the XML is transient, then the XML
> is transformed into some other format (language objects, relational
> database, etc.) that the application works with.
I had a chunk of XML I was working with hanging around for the last 24
hours or so. It's gone now. Was it persistent or transient?
Where's the dividing line and why would I (or my XML) care?
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
|
|
|
|
|