Do people still use XML?
-
It's probably one of those cases where, unless you need to use XML, use JSON. From your problem statement it seems that you need to use XML, so use it. Tough if everyone hates it.
Kevin
Unfortunately, i can't readily use JSON because node order is significant, and JSON allows for reording of child nodes.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
in sql server the XML might actually be useful. from a parse tree, less so
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
codewitch honey crisis wrote:
in sql server the XML might actually be useful. from a parse tree, less so
That I don't know, but it doesn't change the point that you asked whether XML is still appropriate. I think it may be moreso than a CSV file ;)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
codewitch honey crisis wrote:
in sql server the XML might actually be useful. from a parse tree, less so
That I don't know, but it doesn't change the point that you asked whether XML is still appropriate. I think it may be moreso than a CSV file ;)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
One time I built a mapper that allowed you to represent hierarchical data in tabular format, using the same technique used by MS SQLXML, including the column naming style and such. It was primarily used for accessing RDBMS systems using XML and XPath but you could use it on anything that can be tabular including CSV files and even HTML forms
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I can't use JSON for rendering a parse tree because JSON does not preserve the order of subelements and because of the way multiple values are presented it gives json problems. XML can do it, because XML preserves element order and an element can be present more than once within its parent container. But I don't want to bother if everyone hates XML. What would you do?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
XML is widely used. And, it's often a lot more convenient than JSON, since you can create a DTD that lets the parser do a lot of the grunt work for you. I use it all over the place. I only use JSON if it's already part of the protocol of a device I'm talking to or it's stuff related to talking to Javascript in a browser.
Explorans limites defectum
-
One time I built a mapper that allowed you to represent hierarchical data in tabular format, using the same technique used by MS SQLXML, including the column naming style and such. It was primarily used for accessing RDBMS systems using XML and XPath but you could use it on anything that can be tabular including CSV files and even HTML forms
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
You'd think that after 27 years we would have agreed on a standard way to access the database. From SQL92 and ODBC to ADO and DAO to .NET providers and connections, we have this long list on standard ways, and you introduce yet another way that is built on existing standards. :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
You'd think that after 27 years we would have agreed on a standard way to access the database. From SQL92 and ODBC to ADO and DAO to .NET providers and connections, we have this long list on standard ways, and you introduce yet another way that is built on existing standards. :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
That's why standards are great - we have so many to choose from! :^)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
XML is widely used. And, it's often a lot more convenient than JSON, since you can create a DTD that lets the parser do a lot of the grunt work for you. I use it all over the place. I only use JSON if it's already part of the protocol of a device I'm talking to or it's stuff related to talking to Javascript in a browser.
Explorans limites defectum
I mostly use JSON these days for data interchange, but I hear you about typing. That being said, there's a spec for JSON schemas, and many engines already support validation using them. I don't use them myself. In the real world, most JSON is machine generated, which means it doesn't necessarily need heavy validation unless its coming from somewhere external (to avoid possible exploits)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I mostly use JSON these days for data interchange, but I hear you about typing. That being said, there's a spec for JSON schemas, and many engines already support validation using them. I don't use them myself. In the real world, most JSON is machine generated, which means it doesn't necessarily need heavy validation unless its coming from somewhere external (to avoid possible exploits)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
For me lots of it is user configuration, or data from external devices or servers, none of which can be assumed to be even reasonably correct. And, ultimately, it all really probably should get good validation. If your program croaks because of an error in another program, that's not a good thing.
Explorans limites defectum
-
For me lots of it is user configuration, or data from external devices or servers, none of which can be assumed to be even reasonably correct. And, ultimately, it all really probably should get good validation. If your program croaks because of an error in another program, that's not a good thing.
Explorans limites defectum
that's what error handling is for. Validation just lets you throw sooner. A lot of times that's not even necessary.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I can't use JSON for rendering a parse tree because JSON does not preserve the order of subelements and because of the way multiple values are presented it gives json problems. XML can do it, because XML preserves element order and an element can be present more than once within its parent container. But I don't want to bother if everyone hates XML. What would you do?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
I would not use XML if there was serious volume involved, I've seen systems fail using xlm when attempting to transfer gb between systems. As others have said use the correct tool for the job no matter whet the "popularity" you perceive is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
-
I can't use JSON for rendering a parse tree because JSON does not preserve the order of subelements and because of the way multiple values are presented it gives json problems. XML can do it, because XML preserves element order and an element can be present more than once within its parent container. But I don't want to bother if everyone hates XML. What would you do?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
For what it's worth, XML has been my preferred persistence format for a long time. It makes it relatively easy to manage arbitrary structure and schema changes, UNICODE, and so on. It also translates well to other programming environments and languages, given that support is fairly ubiquitous. It's no longer "flavor of the month", but it has the advantage of... it works.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
If you need to guarantee that your objects stay in order, use XML. JSON is subject to the engine that's parsing it, where XML is - well - XML. The only thing I think most real programmers hate is any form of visual basic.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013#realJSOP wrote:
The only thing I think most real programmers hate is any form of visual basic.
That sounds like a challenge :laugh:. Let's see.
- Windows installer and writing install packages for it
- Writing Windows device drivers
- Writing Windows device driver installers
- Creating Windows install images when a new revision of the OS comes out
- The MSDN web site, which Microsoft redesigns to obscure the fact they're removing content so they don't have to support it
and that's just the crap I can think of associated with Microsoft and Windows. If I got started on software management in a hardware-centric company, two things would happen. One, I'd probably exceed Chris' message length limit, and two my ass would be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I would not use XML if there was serious volume involved, I've seen systems fail using xlm when attempting to transfer gb between systems. As others have said use the correct tool for the job no matter whet the "popularity" you perceive is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
There’s a way around the big-ass file problem, but it comes with restrictions. A few months ago, I wrote some code to load files that were as large as 8gb. It could probably go larger, but that’s the largest file I had.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I would not use XML if there was serious volume involved, I've seen systems fail using xlm when attempting to transfer gb between systems. As others have said use the correct tool for the job no matter whet the "popularity" you perceive is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
The "job" is undefined. I'm making an API. Anyway, I'm not sure I'm going through with this bit. Besides I have other stuff to work on that has taken precedence.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
There’s a way around the big-ass file problem, but it comes with restrictions. A few months ago, I wrote some code to load files that were as large as 8gb. It could probably go larger, but that’s the largest file I had.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013I design pretty much everything assuming my files are going to be 16GB meaning i use streams and (when necessary) pull parsers. I *always* chunk, absent the narrow case where it doesn't make sense to.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
There’s a way around the big-ass file problem, but it comes with restrictions. A few months ago, I wrote some code to load files that were as large as 8gb. It could probably go larger, but that’s the largest file I had.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013It was a few years ago and was basically transferring a daily snapshot of a banking system to a reporting/analysis tool with biztalk in the mix. System was totally unwieldy and got canned before it was completed. XML was never used again as a transfer medium.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
-
I can't use JSON for rendering a parse tree because JSON does not preserve the order of subelements and because of the way multiple values are presented it gives json problems. XML can do it, because XML preserves element order and an element can be present more than once within its parent container. But I don't want to bother if everyone hates XML. What would you do?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Prolly stating the obvious, but can you package subelements as items in an array? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Prolly stating the obvious, but can you package subelements as items in an array? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
they need names. i could, but the resulting json isn't worth it [ {a: b}, {c: d} , {e: f} ] sucks, you know? better to just use xml
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I can't use JSON for rendering a parse tree because JSON does not preserve the order of subelements and because of the way multiple values are presented it gives json problems. XML can do it, because XML preserves element order and an element can be present more than once within its parent container. But I don't want to bother if everyone hates XML. What would you do?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Use PostScript. It's like a version of XML that hasn't had its bollocks lopped off.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
