Re: Development Trends in Web and Oracle

> "REQUIREMNT to store XML"?
> Not in my company.
> If you want to "assume" it is a requirement to actually store XML,
> be my guest, but please don't believe that this is, should or will
> be done by some, many,most, all businesses.

A few big players storing XML in databases, using XMLDB include the UK National Archives, The Dutch Government, and US National Archives and Records Administation (NARA). Google out for further details.

But in terms of a requirement to store data as hierarchical XML rather than relational flat - well if front ends and middleware are processing and communicating with XML & webservices etc, why not store the data then afford as XML in a database. Why take the XML and turn it into something flat for storage in a relational sense. And why then retrieve this relational data and turn it back into XML for reuse in the middleware etc. This is surely an impedence mismatch. Oracle offers storage & manipulation of XML as a native data type so why not use it.

No one has said it in the thread yet, and I'm not suggesting these are your view, but I have a feeling there may be some hesitence because

1. It is a new language to learn (DBA's and application developers need to know XPATH and SQL not just one) and it may look frightening.
2. Mixing XML in existing relational databases in legacy systems is a bit hodge-podge. Maybe the safe bet for existing systems is to stay totally relational, I don't know. Perhaps new implementations might are up for debate with less resistance?
3. The only mainstream databases with strong XML support are DB2 and Oracle. Many organisations are using mysql, SQL Server , postgrest etc where the manipulation of XML in the database is absent or perhaps not as strong as it could be. Here storing XML in the database doesn't offer the benefits afforded by DB2 and Oracle.

This verbosity argument that keeps coming up just doesn't stand up to even distant scrutiny.

Regards
Hex

"IANAL_VISTA" <IANAL_Vista_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns96175810FDD35SunnySD_at_68.6.19.6...
> "Hexathioorthooxalate" <ruler_at_removemetoemail.clara.co.uk> wrote in
> news:1110643410.31095.0_at_iris.uk.clara.net:
>
>>
>> Organisations have a growing requirement to store XML, like it or lump
>> it.
>
> "REQUIREMNT to store XML"?
> Not in my company.
> If you want to "assume" it is a requirement to actually store XML,
> be my guest, but please don't believe that this is, should or will
> be done by some, many,most, all businesses.
>
> [...snip...]
>
>>
>> And we haven't even addressed that XML is offering the possibility of
>> a true cross platform open long term data format. And it is simple.
>> Hex
>
> I agree with you on this point, but this does NOT neccesitate keeping
> the XML overhead after the data has been exchanged.
>
Received on Sat Mar 12 2005 - 11:14:33 CST