ObjectWeb Consortium
Search ObjectWeb Mail Archive: 

Advanced Search - Powered by Google


Mail Archive Home | architecture List | August 2004 Index

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Re: [architecture] Fwd: greeting from XimpleWare


Claus, Thanks for the comments. However, having dependency on
interface is often regarded as not good enough. Why? Because
businesses evolves, new partners, activity, rules will drive the schema
to evolve along the business change. In this regards, CORBA and
RMI is usually considered a little brittle, not well suited for app integration.
I heard cases where two RMI had trouble conversing with each other :(.
I think XML is a step forward from that point of view. But every pros has
a con, a bottle is half empty of half full...
Jimmy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [architecture] Fwd: greeting from XimpleWare



Jimmy,

"Jimmy zhang" <jzhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 11.08.2004 02:37:02:

> Claus,

>    Thanks for the email. Whether XML is human-readable has
> to do the very meaning of "human-readable." I think that what
> makes XML unique is the combination of open, interoperable,
> loose-coupling and (almost) human-readable.
                      ^
                      ¦

You just confirmed my point here. :-)

> Loose-coupling
> means that, similar to HTML,  a Web services application will
> have the option of processing only what it intends to understand
> and process, and disregard other parts of the contend, and not
> break the application.

> The same thing can't be said of RMI or
> CORBA, which must have a schema before hand. The problem
> is that when people changes implementation, they inevitably
> have to the change the data itself, which breaks applications.

No, only when they change interfaces ; -- and they know they must
not do that...

>  
>   For Enterprise App Integation, interoprability is the most
> important thing, XML is *ideally" suited for that.

I think that is still a subject matter under dispute. No doubt
XML has a lot to offer -- but *ideally* is too much of a claim.

> Adam bosworth
> had a very article on this,
> http://www.fawcette.com/xmlmag/2002_04/magazine/departments/endtag/
>  
>  Let me know what you think of it.

I would not recommend reading that article: it's too shallow.

I can find no proof in the above article for the claim that XML
would be *ideally* suited to solve the interoperability problem.

Today's XML is part of the problem (! not of the optimum solution !)
because it allows for so many encoding variations, which requires
XML processors to be more complex than inherently necessary.

That is at the core of the suggestion I made yesterday (see
quotation below).

Yet, let all this aside, in my opinion:
your approach seems to be valuable for dealing with today's XML,
and should therefore be analyzed closer by OW for possible
adoption.

Kind regards

        Claus Hirth

>  
> Cheers,
> Jimmy Zhang
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: claus.hirth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Jimmy zhang
> Cc: francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:37 PM
> Subject: WG: [architecture] Fwd: greeting from XimpleWare
>
>
> Dear Jimmy,
> François,
>
> quote from http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-
> ximpleware-positionpaper-updated.htm :
>
> "XML is, by design, human-readable [ ... ]"
>
> That is not so, quite remarkably. Consider
>
> (1)
>
> XML does not prescribe one, and only one, standard encoding.
> Therefore any XML Editor or XML Viewer must deal with eg character
> encoding declarations at
> attribute level.
>
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#charencoding
>
> (2)
>
> For URIs, XML requires everything that is non-ASCII to be encoded ineg UTF-8,
> which is not what I would call human-readable.
>
> See http://www.w3c.org/TR/xmlbase/#escaping
>
> --
>
> So really, XML is designed to be completely
> * transferable through every network on the market,
> * storeable on any storage device on the market,
> but it is not designed to be completely following the 'view source principle',
> although XML in most practical cases does come close to this principle...
>
> --
>
> The following are the conclusions to draw from the need for both
> * readable source 'view the source'
> * efficient marshaling for network and storage transfer:
>
> (1) Define a standard 'view the source' form for 'XML';
>     eg: require it to be encoded as UCS-4,
>     because that is the only possible realistic choice.
>
>     Consequence: you can't 'view the source' if your editor can't
>     display all the characters from UCS-4.
>
> (2) Compile the 'view the source' form to a networkable form of XML
>     whenever you save the source from your editor.
>     A network byte order binary XML representation would be one
>     possible networkable form.
>
>     Consequence: a standardized and portable compiler must be made
>     available in a FOSS implementation.
>
> (3) Require XML processors to understand both the binary standard form,
>     and the 'view the source' form, of 'XML'.
>
>     Reason: That let's the user choose whether he wants to 'view the source'
>     or whether he wants optimum marshaling performance.
>
>     Note: By this we also require any XML-View-The-Source-Editor to be
>     able to read and display 'network byte order binary XML' as if it
>     were a 'UCS-4-encoded XML'.
>
> (4) Encourage the transitional support for the current alternative encodings
>     of XML such as UTF-8, UTF-16 in XML processors to support existing
>     'legacy-XML' documents and applications.
>
> I would be interested to hear your opinions on this. I'd be especially
> interested, and grateful, if you can point out any flaws that may have
> slipped in.
>    
> Kind regards
>
>         Claus Hirth
>         Diplom-Informatiker Universität
>         Member of the ObjectWeb Consortium
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Claus 2003-05 Hirth/eMaert on 10.08.2004 21:50 -----
>
> Francois Letellier <francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 10.
> 08.2004 11:56:45:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > FYI: XimpleWare is currently considering joining OW and maybe submitting
> > their project, VTD-XML, as an OW project.
> > The email below explains it all...
> >
> > - Francois
> >
> >
> > >From: "Jimmy zhang" <jzhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: <francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Subject: greeting from XimpleWare
> > >Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:31:16 -0700
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi, Francois,
> > >
> > >   How are you? Hope all is well.
> > >
> > >   It was nice talking with you last week in Linux Expo.
> > >I am just glad to know that ObjectWeb is offering the
> > >world such a great product for free.
> > >
> > >   We (ximpleware) recently released an open source
> > >software called VTD-XML on sourceforge
> > >(http://vtd-xml.sf.net). The goal is simple: we want to
> > >make XML Web services applications scale. The
> > >problem with current generation XML processing
> > >technology is it will suck up to 90% of CPU cycles.
> > >There has been a lot of interesting development in
> > >W3C over the subject of binary XML. Our position
> > >paper is available at
> > >http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-
> > ximpleware-positionpaper-updated.htm
> > >which gives a pretty good overview of the technology.
> > >
> > >   We are very interested in learning more on how
> > >We can partner with Object web to deliver move
> > >the XML web services initiative forward. Could you
> > >suggest procedures or contacts within ObjectWeb?
> > >I appreciate your suggestion of any kind.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Jimmy Zhang
> > >===========
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You receive this message as a subscriber of the
> > architecture@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list.
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:architecture-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > For general help: mailto:sympa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=help
> > ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws


<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Reply via email to:

Powered by MHonArc.

Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.