You can get XML directly from SQL Server 2000 using either HTTP or JDBC. For JDBC you use the incantation "for XML" in your query and you get XML back. with HTTP you can use either XPath against an XML schema (see the SQL Server docs for more info) or a normal SQL query. Both return XML and both can be included as part of the URL enabling you to fetch the data using a simple HTTP GET. Can't speak to the performance of SQL Server in converting to XML but it is available.
Steve -----Original Message----- From: Horst Rutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Generator for SQL Server My point is we could avoid the conversion of SQL result rows into XML in Cocoon alltogether if we query SQL Server for an XML result document, which is one of the features of SQL Server 2000. There is no JDBC involved. I am not sure but I think they are using HTTP instead to talk to the SQL Server. Yes, you lose portability but you may gain a significant boost by avoiding all the XSP/action/transformer work needed right now to convert SQL result rows into XML. BTW if you are looking for an alternative to the MS JDBC driver. Someone on this list recommended the i-net drivers to me: http://www.inetsoftware.de/English/Produkte/JDBC_Overview/ms.htm Horst ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Ng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: RE: Generator for SQL Server I'm using SQL Server and would be interested a performance boost too, but, relative to all the other stuff going on, is the JDBC overhead significant? Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Horst Rutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 5:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Generator for SQL Server > > > Do we have a way to read in XML directly from SQL Server > 2000? That would be really cool and a performance booster, because > there is no need for a SQL to XML transformation. > I guess this also means one has to workaround JDBC for this. > Anybody has a clue what it would take to build smth like this? > > Thanks, > Horst > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
