I have the same experience

Lorenzo Schiavina
----- Original Message -----
From: <goran.hultgren at bluefish.se>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] XML technology as general data store in programs ?


> HNBeck at t-online.de (Hans Nikolaus Beck) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > because this list are many people which are close to computer science
> > research ;-) , I would ask here:
> > would it by a design option to use XML and related standards as a
> > general technology for storing data in programs ? Or let's say as a
> > thesis:  XML( DOM) XQuery, XPath etc. should be used as a kind of
> > "memory database" instead of the tons of special data structures a
> > developer creates in his life for his data  (especially in c/c++ the
> > structs, unions) ? And because of the typeless of squeak language it is
> > easy to  doing so, as I've seen in my current work with yaxo and XPath.
> > But there is  one weakness: it seems to me that XML, XPath and
> > especially XSLT are far more oriented to functional programming then
> > objectorientation. Or would it be really declarative ?
> > So would the thesis above hold for Squeak  ? How important is XML for
> > squeak (croquet) ?
>
> Well, having worked with relational databases, objectoriented databases
> and a fair bit of XML I would say that XML is fine for:
>
> 1. Establishing "language neutral ground". Like people are doing with
> SOAP and document formats using XML.
> 2. Rather easily describing semi-complex (it gets hard if the structures
> are *really* complex) structures.
>
> One of the major good points of XML is that it is very well defined.
>
> But... personally I would say that a "real" OODB is much better for
> representing/storing complex object models.
>
> regards, Göran
>
>
>
>