Re: [xml-dev] Feasibility of "do all application coding in the XML langu

[Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>]

>
> > yea, but a lot of people are using it like PHP rather than a  
> replacement for
> > SQL on XML. It is the way XML DB vendors recommend you make webapps.
> > Writers/editors (at least the ones I have been reading) seem to  
> think this
> > is the way to go. It seems like a step backwards.
>
> Not sure I'd completely agree with that (of course I'm one of the  
> writer/editors that's been advocating this approach). If XQuery 
> +extensions was purely declarative, then the filter approach works  
> fine, but in point of fact one of the most significant changes  
> taking place in the XQuery space is the introduction of database  
> modifying code. Once that happens, then realistically you do have to  
> think about XQuery as being at a minimum part of a processing  
> pipeline and quite possibly the only part of that pipeline This  
> changes the dynamic for XQuery pretty dramatically, and moreover it  
> does so by reducing the processing of a servlet into a complete XML  
> environment.

Sure, that will be nice.

>
>
> However, the key here is again to keep the XQuery as simple (and  
> standardized) as possible - There's an interesting recurrent Filter - 
> > Sort -> Partition (Page) -> Style pattern that seems to show up  
> over and over again in the XQuery I work with, for instance, and  
> XQuery works remarkably well when you deliberately keep your systems  
> as RESTful as possible.

You had me at Filter (and maybe Sort). I might be conflating Filter  
and Partition -- what is the difference?

I don't want Style in XQuery. Use XQuery to just gather up the things  
wanted and needed. That is why I think XSL running natively on the XML  
DB is important. Don't convert the XQuery result into a Source needed  
by an XSL processor on top of the DB, just continue on with the XQuery  
result.


-Rob