Hi,

I'd like to have your opinion regarding this...XML primarily came into
existence for data exchange among different DBMS vendors --> This was
it's primary motive. But I am seeing a lot of XML abuse...used as a
base for configuration files and the lik! The number of applications
actually using XML configuration is quite frankly astonishing...people
have to know various tags pertaining to many different applications.
Eg. Struts, Apache, Servlets - web.xml, Hibernate,
Java Application Servers etc. But what i have noticed is that most of
this XML abuse is in the realm of Java applications. Infact one of the
specified features of the Ruby Language is "No XML!!"

Even the SOA boom happened because of XML, but I feel that to be a
"valid" use of the technology.

What do you think? Please do share your opinion.

Thanks.

Nupul

On 19.04.2007 06:22, nupul wrote:
Where did you get that from? IIRC XML was created as a simpler
derivative of SGML - and that was mainly used for complex documents if
I'm not mistaken.

That's typically not a problem because you get a sample / default
config. Also, if you continuously work with one product chances are
that you get to know the syntax of an XML config file the same was as
for ASCII based formats. XML does have the advantage that you can
verify syntax offline, i.e. with a standalone tool without having to put
your edits in production.

Well, but there are pretty good XML parsers for Ruby. While the core
language does not need any XML you can easily use it, especially with REXML.

I am not sure about this one as I don't know too much about SOA. To me
this is mostly yet another buzzword that came out of the same direction
as the UML and CORBA hype (hint, hint). <rant>There is a crowd of
people that climb meta level after meta level promising that software
development becomes easier with every step. Unfortunately they are so
busy creating new frameworks and standards of increasing complexity that
they are hardly adopted before the next cool thing(TM) is out.</rant>

My 0.02EUR...

Kind regards

robert

On Apr 19, 1:22 am, nupul <nupul.kukr... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
But not surprising. This is a perfectly valid use for XML from the
"machine readable" point of view. I'm not persuaded that XML is
particularly human-friendly; so expecting humans to read and write
complex XML may arguably be "abuse". But tastes differ; some people
cannot cope with the inconsistent schemata of UNIX configuration files
(which I don't mind), or bizarrely prefer Ant to Makefiles. And if the
alternative is GUI editors for the same data, then that comes with its
own drawbacks.

What I've noticed is that Java supplies very good libraries for
working with XML, which may have something to do with it.

At some point everyone needs to put structured data on a bytestream.
XML is just one way.

Complaining about XML is like complaining about nitrogen.

On 20 Apr 2007 20:26:45 -0700, toby <toby (AT) telegraphics (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Agreed. Both are useless gases.

Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

Lemming wrote:
You'd have a hard time living without it, though.

toby <toby (AT) telegraphics (DOT) com.au> wrote:

No XML? No. I managed for years.

No complaining? Well, some of the time, I manage without.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew (AT) ocis (DOT) net> wrote

The analogy between XML and nitrogen is weak. Nitrogen is hardly useless.
Lightning combines nitrogen with oxygen to produce various ions. The rains
washes those ions into the soil. In the soil, compounds based on these ions
act as fertilizer, improving crops.

"David Cressey" <cressey73 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

Fertiliser? I am sure that some people have made the connection
between XML and, ah -- to borrow a line from Royal Canadian Air Farce
(a comedy program) -- Boastful Speaking.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

On May 2, 7:11 am, "David Cressey" <cresse... (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:
Didn't we all? My comment was neither endorsing nor defending nor
attacking XML. It was a metacomment, which both you and David
unfortunately seem to have overlooked...

I did not claim XML or nitrogen were useless; that was Lemming. The
analogy lies elsewhere...

Now you're starting to see where I was coming from.

toby <toby (AT) telegraphics (DOT) com.au> wrote:

No, we had fun with it. Pity us poor nerds. We never get to
have fun.

So did you like the Boastful Speaking reference?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.