Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:00:41 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SQL in the base system Message-ID: <f227fu$m1l$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <17988.40311.210855.381093@bhuda.mired.org> References: <200705102105.27271.blackdragon@highveldmail.co.za> <f20c8u$htp$1@sea.gmane.org> <4643C7DB.6000408@elischer.org> <f219f6$3ls$1@sea.gmane.org> <17988.35412.231093.411177@bhuda.mired.org> <f223ji$7si$1@sea.gmane.org> <17988.40311.210855.381093@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF3CBC1EA99334E21A7E11CAB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Yes, they are present no matter what representation you use. The
> question is - how do the answers change if you change the
> format. These days, cross-platform means you deal with length as well
> as endian issues. Or maybe you don't, depending on the db. I know the
> answers for text files (easy, easy, very, yes). Can you propose a db
> scheme that gets has the same answers?
I think I don't understand the question. If the database contains number =
"42" in a field typed "int32", in a row, and handles endianess well, why =
would I get a different number on different platforms?
(A side note about sqlite: it's actually weakly typed - you store and=20
receive strings).
> I hate to tell you this, but your XML solution would still consist of
> a bunch of one-of file formats for each and every purpose. Using XML
> just fixes the syntax for the file, not the semantics. Settling on XML
> (or JSON, or INI, or cap files, or ...) is sort of like settling on
> UTF, only less obviously a win. Sure, you get to use canned code that
> will turn you text file into a structure in memory. But you still have
> to figure out what it all means.
>=20
> As you say, the XML toolset is the real win. Smart editors,
> validators, schemas (which make the editors and validators even more
> powerful) are all good things. Most people don't really seem
> interested in this beyond editors. That's not really much of a win.
I agree that validation in XML is a strong point - but one of the reason =
people like text files is that they DON'T usually have validation=20
features :)
| pro | contra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
XML | standard tools, validation, | evil manual parsing, bad rep
| can embed multiple data |
| structures in a standard way |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
text | standard tools, sometimes | no validation, manual parsing,
| human readable | usually one data structure per
| | file
--------------enigF3CBC1EA99334E21A7E11CAB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGRKE5ldnAQVacBcgRAvLpAKDAshAiP7IZW3RFYZLQ6SHMd6oKJgCgjgQj
emQqM6aQhwfS+Rlh8duNq2k=
=iJpD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigF3CBC1EA99334E21A7E11CAB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f227fu$m1l$1>