XML has one propouse and SQL does have another one, you can integrate both techs in a soluition.... depending on the plataform used of course, what rob says is just right.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob wrote: > Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 18:40:03 +0000 > From: Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Javier Gonzalo Gloria Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: xml > > Frankly, it sounds like this guy understands neither XML nor relational > databases. > XML is a general-purpose structured data format. > The term "relational database" also connotes a way of storing data, but is > usually used to refer more to the way the data is organized and efficient > ways for accessing, transforming, and re-organizing that data. > SQL, the standard interface to relational databases, is (and let's not > debate the subtleties of this statement) a programming language for working > with structured data. > One aspect of SQL is that you can use it as a format for storing data in > files, and in this respect I totally agree with your friend: XML is a better > choice in the vast majority of cases. SQL is not designed for this purpose: > it's like passing text around by storing it in string constants in C > language header files. In fact, we largely have the SQL crowd to thank for > XML- it was designed largely as a platform-independent way for databases to > exchange data files with one another because there are a lot of problems > with using SQL for this. As a result, it is *very* easy to write a bridge > for just about any relational database which returns result sets as XML > files instead of the traditional row/column format. Many (or most) databases > support this "out of the box". > Further, because XML is a format for storing structured data and databases > (both relational and object-oriented) are focused on the storage and > manipulation of data, you can write an interface that "looks like" a > database as a method of accessing data in XML files. There are several > systems and standards available for doing this to XML. Of course, while > storing data in XML is very portable and readable, it is orders of magnitude > less efficient in terms of both storage space and access time when compared > with the internal formats of true database systems, so patching database > interfaces onto XML files is a convenience, not a replacement for databases. > If you really cared about efficiency, you'd just load the XML data into a > database like mySQL and then access it in the database instead of emulating > database functionality on the XML file itself. > Finally, in addition to offering a structured data format, XML offers a > unified syntax and approach to designing text-based cross-platform > standards. Over the years a lot of text-based standards have been developed > and it is from their mistakes in terms of awkward or non-standard syntax, > portability, and industry adoption that XML has learned. As a result, many > of these aging standards are being replaced with variants which are based on > the XML syntax. SQL is no exception. Several query-processing XML languages > are being developed and deployed, often designed as means of accessing other > XML data-sources, but with possible long-term goals of replacing legacy data > processing languages like SQL. Regardless of what comes of these languages, > they fundamentally affect only the way you access data in a database; they > do not change the nature of relational databases. As these languages gain > acceptance, I see no substantial barrier to new query interfaces being added > to mySQL- whether they come from the mySQL dev team or from other groups who > simply write bridge code. > > And anyone who tells you that any use of joins suggests poor database design > clearly doesn't know *anything* about relational database design. > > > On 9/3/02 at 9:21 am, Javier Gonzalo Gloria Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > hi everybody: > > > > i was talking with a developer and he told the next > > thing: > > > > "if you have a database and you need to do joins to > > make your quaries between tables... your database and > > tables are not full functional, your tables were > > created under a bad configuration" > > > > then he says. > > > > "the best databases are made with xml, old databases > > like mysql, oracle and all the others, will not be > > functionall thanks XML standar". > > > > Well, now I¥m cofused. > > > > Some one can help me with this "is that true", > > > > is XML the next generation of creating databases and > > tables for beast results. > > > > THANKs > > > > JAVIER GLORIA > > developer > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! > > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Before posting, please check: > > http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) > > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) > > > > To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Before posting, please check: > http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) > > To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
