|
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
|
