Re: Development Trends in Web and Oracle

Hexathioorthooxalate apparently said,on my timestamp of 13/03/2005 4:24 AM:

>
> If the XML is data, where do you store data.

It is NOT data. It is metadata. And most of it overhead.

> I store data in a database, I don't know about you.

WHY do you store data in a database?

> It appears to me you do not like XML because of the
> sole reason that it is verbose.

No. Because it is UNNECESSARILY verbose. There is a difference.

 > And because it is verbose, through some
> wierd logic you shouldn't store it in a database.

Because databases are not made to store REDUNDANT data. In fact, one of the most fundamental tennets of database design is to AVOID redundancy. That is PRECISELY why we have normalization.

> Of course you should!

Of course I should NOT.

> I
> still don't know why you shouldn't.

Well, it's not my fault if you are totally ignorant of database theory and practice...

> relational database is not the only way of doing this. XML can offer this,
> and in bucket loads with far more data integrity. It's the whole point; data

Total bullshit. There is NOTHING in XML that ensures integrity to data. Stop uttering crap like that, it only shows your total ignorance of data management.

> an insert. Using the same XML schema that the database uses to validate the
> XML, I can validate beforehand, before contact with the database. That's
> reducing the overhead isn't it ;)

No it isn't. It is SHIFTING the overhead. You reduced NOTHING.

> Incidently, verboseness isn't a problem nowadays anyway. We don't have to
> skimp on bytes here and there because storage arrays or memory are
> expensive.

Yes you do. You have NO IDEA of the volume of RAW data required to be stored nowadays. It far surpasses the hardware capacity to process it.

> When I did my XML 101 course years ago .... for goodness sake Google it out
> or read the Oracle docs yourself. But here is a brief XML Schema and
> discussion to put the comments in context for this posting.. I have defined
> a company below. It defines the root note "whateverRoot" containing many
> companys where each company has a name, address, and registrationdate.
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
> <xs:element name="whateverRoot">
> <xs:complexType>
> <xs:sequence maxOccurs="unbounded">
> <xs:element name="Company">
> <xs:complexType>
> <xs:sequence>
> <xs:element name="CompanyName">
> <xs:simpleType>
> <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
> <xs:length value="50"/>
> <xs:minLength value="5"/>
> </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:element>
> <xs:element name="Address" type="xs:string" minOccurs="1"
> maxOccurs="5"/>
> <xs:element name="CompanyRegistrationDate" type="xs:date"/>
> </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
> </xs:schema>
>
>
> Here, when the XML inserted into the database is validated against this
> schema, it ensures that the XML being inserted conforms to the structure,
> that the company name is between 5 and 50 chars, and that between 1 and 5
> lines of address can exist, and that the CompanyRegistrationDate is present
> in the format CCYY-MM-DD. Even this simple example, it can be seen that
> there is significant data validation (the company name must have between 5
> and 50 chars, and there must be at least 1 and at most 5 lines of address,
> the company name and registration date exist and are not null).

Are you completely ignorant or just trolling? You described NOT A SINGLE thing that can't be achieved much more efficiently in validation using relational.

And you have the NERVE to claim this is unique to XML and somehow distinguishes it as doing more complete and safe validation?

Get lost! I don't have time to argue platitudes with total ignorants. Received on Sat Mar 12 2005 - 22:19:43 CST