Re: [HACKERS] Re: XML (was: 2 patches)
От | Goran Thyni |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: XML (was: 2 patches) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 368D685A.9CFAA65E@kirra.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: XML (was: 2 patches)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: XML (was: 2 patches) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Goran Thyni wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I vote against it. Maybe nice to have as an extra, but the base > > > protocol seems to work well, and is fast. > > > > You are right, > > let me rephrase myself: > > - the "base protocol" might become obsolite if and when we have > > a better object base alternative (CORBA and/or XML). > > - this might be the case for v. 7.0 or later. > > Okay, we have to sides to the coin here...Bruce, who feels that our > current protocol is both good and fast, and you, who wants to replace it > :) > > My question is simple...what benefit is gained by replacing current > protocol? And, what cons? > > Replacing something is great, if there is a reason...what is that reason > and how does that improve us? Marc, The pros, IMHO: * XML interfaces better to the object model of pgsql itself * XML interfaces better to XML-viewer, like next generation of web browsers. With a little imagination we can at some point in the future forget about making clients for the databases, just point your webbrowser at the serverport a make both SELECTs (displays) and INSERT/UPDATE (forms) with a few lines of javascript. The con: * We have a good stable protocol but a little simplistic. Anything new is not as good until it has matured. Thus I not suggesting replacing it until we have something better, sound resonable? mvh, -- ----------------- Göran Thyni This is Penguin Country. On a quiet night you can hear Windows NT reboot!
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: