Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ten Predictions for XML in 2007

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the crystal-balls dept.

The Internet 71

An anonymous reader writes "2007 is shaping up to be the most exciting year since the community drove off the XML highway into the Web services swamp half a decade ago. XQuery, Atom, Atom Publishing Protocol (APP), XProc, and GRRDL are all promising new power. Some slightly older technologies like XForms and XSLT are having new life breathed into them. 2007 will be a very good year to work with XML."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How about reasons not to use XML? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117642)

There's one reason I like JSON way more than XML, and its name is RSI.

Re:How about reasons not to use XML? (5, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117726)

There's one reason I like JSON way more than XML, and its name is RSI.

If you're getting RSI from XML, you're not doing it right. Use a tool! Anyway, the real reason to use JSON instead of XML is cross-site security restrictions. You can't make an XmlHTTPRequest call from one domain to another, but you can add a <script /> tag with a src pointing somewhere else.

XML is broken (4, Insightful)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118062)

If you're getting RSI from XML, you're not doing it right. Use a tool!

So, you're saying that in order to use a markup language whose primary design goal was to be easy for human beings to work with, I should invest in buying and learning at tool? Never mind that I have never even seen a decent XML editor.

Sorry, but XML is just bad design: it's badly designed for machines, and it's badly designed for humans. Using tools to deal with it may be a workaround, but it's certainly not "doing it right".

In fact, the best compromise is probably simply not to write code in XML, but pick one of the better alternative formats and convert to XML after editing.

Re:XML is broken (4, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118096)

So, you're saying that in order to use a markup language whose primary design goal was to be easy for human beings to work with, I should invest in buying and learning at tool? Never mind that I have never even seen a decent XML editor.

No, I'm saying that you should rarely have to edit XML directly yourself. For the times that you do, use a nice programmer's editor like PSPad or Visual Studio that will automatically add close tags (cut your typing in half!). The rest of the time, you should be generating your XML programmatically from some other data source.

In fact, the best compromise is probably simply not to write code in XML, but pick one of the better alternative formats and convert to XML after editing.

Since when is XML "code"? Writing an XSL/T to apply to an XML file may be code-like, but in general XML should be a data format that you pass around between applications, not something you "code" yourself.

JEdit (4, Informative)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118390)

May I suggest JEdit [jedit.org] ? It supports XML out-of-the-box and is open source and runs anywhere and is a great* editor by any measure. If after having your XML closing tags auto-completed, indented, and validated effortlessly in this editor leaves XML still too much work for you, then I hope you never use anything beyond Vi, APL, and LaTex.**

*I said "great" not "perfect". Lets keep this civilised.

**Nothing wrong with any of these: just examples of the tersest things of which I could think.

Re:JEdit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18121206)

Sorry but something written in Java doesn't "run anywhere". You have to have the 100MB or whatever or Java runtime shit installed to run it.

Editors are commodity items, it should be fast and standalone.

Re:JEdit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18128062)

Ok, find me a decent editor that doesn't have *any* external dependencies.

That includes the C and C++ standard libraries, by the way. You can't argue that they don't count because you probably already have them on your computer -- you probably already have the Java runtime, too, unless you're the kind of bullheaded moron who refuses to join the rest of the world in the 21st century.

Re:XML is broken (1)

skeevy (926052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18126234)

Since when is XML "code"? Writing an XSL/T to apply to an XML file may be code-like, but in general XML should be a data format that you pass around between applications, not something you "code" yourself.

Code hidden as XML is everywhere. Ever since someone promoted the fallacy that XML is not code, applications everywhere have spawned little crappy domain-specific languages whose syntax is XML.

Here's a quick test: do you check the XML document in to your version control or configuration management system? Then it's code.

Re:XML is broken (2, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18127190)

Here's a quick test: do you check the XML document in to your version control or configuration management system? Then it's code.

Oddly enough, I also check-in READMEs, SETUPs, images, doc files, etc. None of those are code, and neither is my XML configuration file (for example).

Re:XML is broken (1)

google (125927) | more than 7 years ago | (#18127580)

So I WAS on the right track when I was trying to color-correct that JPG using TextMate. Thanks!

Hear Hear! (1)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118346)

it's annoying to write, it's annoying to parse. Python serialization was designed better. I'll probably never design a format under XML, but it looks like I'm sure gonna have to use some. Oh, well. If everyone goes along and it brings us some interoperability utopia, then screw optimality and go for it. Yay XML!

Re:XML is broken (3, Interesting)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118484)

pick one of the better alternative formats and convert to XML after editing

Well said. A good example is RELAX NG [wikipedia.org] : write the source in the compact syntax [relaxng.org] and convert it to XML when/if you need it.

A simple compact syntax example:

start = element title { text }*

The equivalent XML (and the RELAX NG XML format is considered much better than, e.g., W3C XML Schema):

<grammar xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
_ <start>
_ _ <zeroOrMore>
_ _ _ <element name="title">
_ _ _ _ <text/>
_ _ _ </element>
_ _ </zeroOrMore>
_ </start>
</grammar>

(Please ignore the underscores.)

Remember people: XML may be good for data interchange between different applications because every language ever created by the gods has an XML parser, but don't use it for anything else. To quote Phillip J. Eby [dirtsimple.org] : Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use XML." Now they have two problems.

Re:XML is broken (3, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120936)

To quote Phillip J. Eby: "Some people, when confronted with a problem, think 'I know, I'll use XML.' Now they have two problems."

And I have a t-shirt that says (in the style of those motivational posters) "Abstraction: because the first step in solving any problem is always to create more problems." So, does that mean abstraction is bad, too?

Re:XML is broken (1)

adamkennedy (121032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119418)

So, you're saying that in order to use a markup language whose primary design goal was to be easy for human beings to work with, I should invest in buying and learning at tool?

XML is not meant to be easy to "work" with as such, it's meant to be human understandable for things like debugging and development.

The XML creators have been quite clear on a number of occasions that they never expected people to be writing XML by hand.

Re:XML is broken (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18137392)

The XML creators have been quite clear on a number of occasions that they never expected people to be writing XML by hand.

This was out of the XML creators' hands, since the basic syntax was created by the SGML designers, and they designed the syntax with the intent that it be easy to use for humans. Of course, they were wrong.

In any case, the fact remains that XML is a lousy language for humans and it's a lousy language for computers.

Re:XML is broken (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120910)

Never mind that I have never even seen a decent XML editor
You need to try Kate [kate-editor.org] .

Re:XML is broken (1)

Refried Beans (70083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18121694)

In fact, the best compromise is probably simply not to write code in XML, but pick one of the better alternative formats and convert to XML after editing.
So what do you suggest for "better alternative formats?"

Re:XML is broken (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18121700)

...In fact, the best compromise is probably simply not to write code in XML, but pick one of the better alternative formats and convert to XML after editing.

XML files are NOT "Code", but a methodology of laying out data in a hierarchical [wikipedia.org] format. The human brain structures data in a hierarchical format. But in a binary world, relational [wikipedia.org] formats are more efficient. You may be thinking of the XSLT [wikipedia.org] , which is used to convert XML data to a HTML format. I would agree with you on that point. As for XSD, a method used to ease edit checking, I would NOT agree with you on that point. As for even considering using XmlHTTPRequest [wikipedia.org] , DO NOT USE IT, insert a XML Preprocessing [wikipedia.org] tag at the top of your XML data, and let the Browser* internals do the rest for you.

When the day occurs that downloading time of data becomes an issue for you. It may be worth while to have the HTML, CSS, Javascript, XSLT, and XSD files already Cached on the Client side. Then the only "Time Sink" is the data, in XML format; Coming, and going to the server.

* Browsers like Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari; Browsers ranked according to downloading counts.

You need a computer to use XML (1, Funny)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124208)

That is right, it's extremely difficult to use XML unless you have a tool, like a computer. Technically, you can use XML with a pencil and paper, but it's difficult, and a pencil is a tool too. You can also write XML in the sand with a stick, but sticks are also tools. Another thing you can do is think about XML with your brain, but your brain is also a tool. So yes, you do have to use tools in order to use XML, and if you don't have any tools like brains or sticks or pencils or computers, then no, you should not be using XML.

-Don

design by glib comments (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18141806)

Yeah, people who approach design as a series of glib comments and ad-hoc decisions would favor XML, Don.

Re:How about reasons not to use XML? (3, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120136)

That's why I gave up using bitmap images. Looking at the picture, dividing it into a grid of units (I call them pixels, short for picture elements - cute, eh?), estimating the RGB values, converting them to hex and keying them in just got to be too much effort.

Re:How about reasons not to use XML? (1)

anomalous cohort (704239) | more than 7 years ago | (#18135680)

There's one reason I like JSON way more than XML, and its name is RSI.

You're typing any of this stuff by hand? You're kidding right?

JSON and XML are appropriate as a wire protocol for app 2 app communication. JSON is appropriate only when the receiving application is written in java script. There are only two scenarios that I can think off right off the bat that I might hand type XML. One is a configuration file (e.g. WEB-INF\web.xml) and the other is a GRDDL [w3.org] style personal vanity site which isn't going to be that much more typing than HTML.

Typing lots of content using any markup language just doesn't scale.

With regards to JSON vs XML in AJAX apps, I am currently reading a Christian Gross book called Ajax Patterns and Best Practices. He prefers XML over JSON because of the man-in-the-middle code injection vulnerability with JSON. In order to convert the JSON formatted string to a java script object hierarchy, you must evaluate it. You always use an XML parser on XML. I really prefer JSON because java script that calls the XML DOM [w3.org] is a lot more complicated than java script that just references another java script object hierarchy. If you are really concerned about this rare form of intrusion, then scan the input string for injection markers before passing it to eval.

I would be interested in other developer's opinions on this.

No. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18117644)

Not hardly.

My hope.. (3, Interesting)

gregmac (629064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117774)

..that XML will stop being a buzzword, and we will no longer see products with "XML support" as a feature point (supporting formats that USE XML is fine, but "XML" itself is a container format, it can describe literally ANYTHING..)

Re:My hope.. (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117994)

The worse is job descriptions that asks for "Experience working with XML".

Doing -what- with XML?! Thats so freakin generic, sometimes I wonder if I should put "experience with flat text files" on my resume...

Re:My hope.. (0, Flamebait)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118764)

XML has standard APIs (DOM, XPath, and so forth) that plain text lacks. So although experience with flat text files is meaningless, experience with XML is not. Organizations advertising for XML expertise will be happy to hear that their job ads have turned away the clueless, such as yourself.

Re:My hope.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18119620)

Write a CSV parser, and then you can say that working with flat text files "is meaningless." It's harder than people think. The PHP fgetcsv() function gets it wrong right off the bat by forgetting that a newline can appear within a quoted field.

What a world we live in, when knowing and doing more is derided just because it isn't buzzword compliant.

Re:My hope.. (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18121192)

If they are advertising a job that indicates "Experience with XML", they are going to get shit for replies. They are going to get coders that have written a configuration file in XML by hand and think that means "Experience with XML". If the company actually wants DOM, XPath, and XSL, they need to say "Experience with XML; experience with XPath, DOM, and XSL a plus" or something of that nature.

Re:My hope.. (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18130198)

Thank you. Someone gets it, and thats exactly what I meant.

When I see "Experience with XML", i'm wondering, do they mean knowing the actual concept of XML, including namespaces, etc? Do they mean using XML as a basic data transfer format, ala Web Service? Do they mean using XML as a near database? Or do they mean full blown programming with XPath, DOM, XSLT, etc?

I've seen all 3, and more (I -have- seen job offers for programmers with 4+ years exp in XML that only wanted people to be able to read XML config files!).

Confusing as hell, and its hard to take seriously. But back before I knew all the APIs, I -did- write XML as one of my skills, just to catch the gullibles buzzword crazy HR guys to leech off of them. Worked once or twice.

Re:My hope.. (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118426)

As soon as it no longer is a buzz word, it will be dying :)

It wil have been replaced with the next great buzz word.

Re:My hope.. (1)

Planetes (6649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118460)

We use it to import and export data between different subcontractor engineering software.

Re:My hope.. (2, Insightful)

gregmac (629064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118934)

Oh, so then I can take my XML from my subcontractor engineering software:

<info>
  <building>
      <foundation>
          <cost>400000</cost>
      </foundation>
      <insulation>
          <cost>200000</cost>
      </insulation>
      <roof>
          <style>flat</style>
          <cost>300000</cost>
      </root>
  </building>
</info>
and import it into your software? Sweet!

Perhaps you mean, that your software understands "whiz-bang engineering interchange files" (which happen to be XML-based).. which was my point, there is a distinction.

Re:My hope.. (1)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18126784)

Doesn't validate. There's an unclosed tag in there.

Re:My hope.. (1)

cof (471791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119822)

"literally ANYTHING?" How about a character 0 (null terminator)? Perhaps "anything" is too strong. I guess you can "describe it", just don't try to encode it. (try it, you won't like it.)

How about "documents"? For documents it qualifies as ... ok, verbose, but better than it's predecessors (html, sgml). But it's a seriously lame data format, even as a container or transport format. It's verbose, slow, complex, and yet ... still incomplete. For the time and energy that's gone into XML we could have had something useful.

My favorite endorsement of XML technology (XQuery) was the statement (I paraphrase only as a result of time - both available and elapsed): "if you're using XML you'll have to use a tool like XQuery. XML is so complex and has so many edge cases you have to use a tool, like XQuery, that can deal with it or you'll get bit by one of them". Now, to be clear, this was in *support* of XML and XQuery.

Obviously I am confused, because, for me, this sounds more like a Very Good reason to Not use XML, rather than a reason to use XQuery. This is the level of clear headed thinking, practical wisdom, and experience that has gone into XML.

OTOH - I guess XML (and its ilk), fully, support the "consultants full employment" act.

Re:My hope.. (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120612)

> "XML" itself is a container format
and a bad one at that.

So XML has graduated? (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117814)

Wow, I guess I'm going to have start thinking of XML as a serious technology instead of a Latest-Fad-Tech-Widget-Buzzword-Laden curiousity. Well, I've still got the ol' fall back, WWW.

Re:So XML has graduated? (1)

Bargearse (68504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119148)

Is Latest-Fad-Tech-Widget-Buzzword-Laden related to Osama-bin-Laden at all? :)

Re:So XML has graduated? (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18122186)

Is Latest-Fad-Tech-Widget-Buzzword-Laden related to Osama-bin-Laden at all? :)

Sir, this is the Bush Regime...er, Department of State Security...uh,Secret Police....no, Department of Homeland Security. We understand that you have posted about Osama Bin Laden. Are you related to him? Would you mind coming with us so we can discuss this? Do you know where he is? Because we'd really like to talk with him. No, sir, he's not in trouble, we just have a few questions.

Oh, you were posting on /., well that's another matter. We'll just charge you with Anti-American crimes. But, look on the bright side, you won't need cold weather gear where we are sending you.

Gorak thinks XML is a fad (0, Flamebait)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124342)

Who are you, Gorak, the prehistoric ice man from 1996 [wikipedia.org] ??! How long have you been frozen in a cave, if you're just getting over the impression that XML is the latest fad? What was it like having Steve Irwin jam his thumb up your butthole?

-Don

Re:Gorak thinks XML is a fad (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124524)

Who are you, Gorak, the prehistoric ice man from 1996??! How long have you been frozen in a cave, if you're just getting over the impression that XML is the latest fad? What was it like having Steve Irwin jam his thumb up your butthole?

Z O O M ! ! !

The sound you heard was a passing, way over your head.

And you sound a bit on the angry side as well. Need a hug?

Re:Gorak thinks XML is a fad (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18126648)

The sound you heard was a passing, way over your head.

I read that as "parsing".

Re:Gorak thinks XML is a fad (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128758)

Damn, too bad I can't mod this discussion, I'd give you a "Funny". That was good. Dry and good. Wonder if anyone else got it.

I was going to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18117820)

XML will still suck. But looks like ERH anticipated that one!

If WSDL is done, tell it take XML Schema with it.

#11: another 1000+ pg paperback book on XML from ERH. As 1000+ pg paperback books go, though, his are some of the best.

I've got some. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18117862)

It will still be used as the wrong tool for the job. People will still design schemas with a 15:1 bloat:actual-data ratio. It will find itself used in applications which benefit not at all from any of its strengths, but those strengths will be the selling point.

Who else was hoping... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18117876)

Who else was hoping that "XML dies and goes away" would be on the list? :D

Year of the XML formats as well? Fight! (1)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118004)

OpenDocument or Microsoft Office Open XML? Let's see, 10 years of XML hell so this battle should be good for another 10.

Re:Who else was hoping... (2, Interesting)

uradu (10768) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119494)

In my experience those who hate it the most are those who understand it the least.

Re:Who else was hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18119736)

Your experience, in your head, while quite convincing to you no doubt, does nothing to convince us or anyone else of the merits of XML. Maybe I'm insane, and my experience is that XML was created by Martians and is really an encoding of their secret foot-shuffle language. Please, do tell us of your experience, instead of snarkily keeping it to yourself, so we can judge both XML and your judgment of it.

Re:Who else was hoping... (1)

eipipuz (631495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124924)

Parent is right. It's easy to say "if you think it's bad, it's because you don't get it". It gives no info. Grandparent is flame bait if it doesn't supply an argument.

I hate XML (1)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18135102)

Because I know how to make parsers to process it (wich are slower than parsers for about any other form of data).

Because I know s-expressions which are easier to type and encode much more information that XML. s-expressions can be data exactly like XML, but can also be code. Beautiful code.

Because is more a marketing buzzword than real meat.

That said, I use XML when I have to, like generating XLS files in PHP. But I would not use it at all if I didn't received money for doing it.

Re:I hate XML (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 6 years ago | (#18152088)

> Beautiful code.

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and parenthesis hell isn't particularly beautiful to me. For a human readable format, I find it a lot harder to match small closing parentheses than explicit--albeit more verbose--closing tags, especially since you very rarely find multiple consecutive identical closing tags in real data.

> That said, I use XML when I have to

Excellent, that's where the value of XML comes in. It's neither the most efficient, nor necessarily the most beautiful data description standard out there, but as it goes with standards, the fewer there are the more useful they become. XML is the most successful generic data description standard yet, and there are parsers and manipulation tools on just about any platform and in any language imaginable.

Re:Who else was hoping... (2, Interesting)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120636)

I'd kill XML in favour of either:

- A standard binary, binary-safe serialization format that allows you to serialize simple objects: int, float, (unicode) string, list of any of these types and dictionary of int, float or string any of these types.

- A real, binary-safe, flexible grammar processing tool that allows you to define grammars in EBNF and process them (preferrably, constructing and deconstructing the parse tree), being standard, clean, and multi-language. This will allow you to work with XML as well as other existing exchange formats (INI, CSV, etc.) and absolutely anything else.

Re:Who else was hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18128678)

consider ASN.1 and BER encoding. ASN.1 is not EBNF but it's reasonable enough. BER is proveably interoperable. if you don't like BER, use PER or CER instead.

Re:Who else was hoping... (1)

Ankh (19084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18130624)

Although we (W3C) are in fact working on more efficient binary encodings (www.w3.org/XML/EXI [w3.org] ) this misses the point a little.

The good thing about XML is that it isn't good for anything, but is mediocre for everything :-)

The main original use case were not "INI files" or other configuration stuff, but computer documentation, and transcriptions of texts. Mixed content, such as paragraphs of running text in which certain items are marked, or tagged, in some way, was the primary goal. We really didn't predict things like Web services!

XML is here, though. Almost every XML expert (myself included, and no irony here) would like to see XML be slightly different in some way, but we all also understand that the importance that every XML tool can have a stab at doing something useful with just about any XML document. And yes, there are people who like using emacs/vi/textedit/eclipse/wordpad/whatever in addition to tools like oxygen or Stylus Studio.

Liam

2007 will be a very good year to work with XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18118066)

God help us.

My predictions (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118456)

1) more bloated and so
2) slower and
3) more hierarchical database 'bolt ons' with exciting new ways of violating ACID.

What? Me cynical?

XML and Web services (1)

Rac3r5 (804639) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118564)

Ok,

What I don't get is what the big deal is with XML web services, especially SOAP, sure it allows you to send data fairly easily, but it seems that we are adding computational complexity and bandwidth overload to the mix. I have used SOAP web services and am not sure why it is so popular compared to XML-RPC.
Isnt there a more efficient way to send data than in XML?

Re:XML and Web services (3, Informative)

jma05 (897351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118896)

SOAP is typed. XML-RPC isn't. So SOAP is easier to work with in conjunction with stub generators in statically typed languages. Dynamically typed languages are better off with XML-RPC.

A better comparison is - Is SOAP any better than CORBA for what SOAP is being used for. It was initially sold with the "port 80" and "easier to debug than a binary protocol" arguments. Those don't hold much water any longer. Further, SOAP added a ton of extensions obliterating any ease of use promises, a trap that CORBA itself fell into. Heck, even the basic WSDL spec turned out to be difficult enough that stub generators aren't available for most languages. Python recently got one last week, but dynamic languages mostly went without.

If all that one does is typed stateless procedural calls, CORBA is hardly anymore complex than SOAP and heck of a lot more efficient than SOAP.

Re:XML and Web services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18118922)

Obviously you've never used CORBA.

Re:XML and Web services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18118998)

SOAP fucking sucks. It's confusing, opaque, and bloated. Try XML-RPC. Or, pretty much any data serialization format you can get for any programming language is going to be more efficient than using XML to send data.

Re:XML and Web services (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120660)

Truth. Your post deserves Insightful.

SOAP is your typical bloated, overengineered, nauseatingly verbose, terribly inefficient, butt ugly W3C "recommendation". Better not let them "recommend" you anything else.

We only needed RPCs with a standard serialization format covering lists and dictionaries for those who work with productive languages. NOT in XML format, that just sucks, and congratulations on making web services useless for anything where performance is important - even for looping over calls.

CORBA (1)

guardia (579095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18123498)

Yes, it is exists and it's called CORBA http://www.omg.org/ [omg.org] . In particular, omniORB http://omniorb.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] is VERY fast. The only thing is that it's not a "Web service" and doesn't use HTTP.

Re:CORBA (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18123738)

Ugh. CORBA. It can hardly get more convoluted and over-engineered than CORBA. It tries to be everything and achieves nothing well.

Re:CORBA (1)

guardia (579095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124984)

The question was not how to make life easier, but how to transfer data more "efficiently" than XML :) But I agree, CORBA is pretty complex... for my own needs, I stick to the basics and forget things like Naming Services, Objects By Value, Component Model, the "Any" type, ugh.. I find that the mappings for Java, C++ and Python are not so ugly in that case, quite usable and much better than cooking up protocols with sockets everytime. It's too bad it got so bloated that it made people fear it and come up with things like SOAP. :(

all I want is compatability (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18118974)

if microsoft stops being arrogant morons and/or the firefox makers stop being different just cuz, and Opera makers will stop being oblivious, and people just plain stop using Netscape, they'll adopt one single standard for everything to do with XML and I'll stop having to write CSS files that are twice as big and duplicating lines in my XML files.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18119268)

<Predictions>
  <Prediction>All</Prediction>
  <Prediction>Your</Prediction>
  <Prediction>XML</Prediction>
  <Prediction>Are</Prediction>
  <Prediction>Belong</Prediction>
  <Prediction>To</Prediction>
  <Prediction>Us</Prediction>
  <Prediction></Prediction>
  <Prediction></Prediction>
<Predictions>

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18121180)

The last <Predictions> should of course be </Predictions>.

(Sorry about that...)

Buzzwords (1, Funny)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18120598)

XML allows you to discover new business opportunities, maximize your profits, convert visitors into customers, cut development times and optimize cash flows allowing your enterprise to scale to your needs with Web 2.0 AJAX-based solutions built on web services in a SOA. By adhering to best-practice design patterns on XML, your applications can interact with each oth...

(because XML is a universal language and networks did not allow you to do this already.)

The trend is now to build XML (*fap*fap*fap*), then use XSL stylesheets (*fap*fap*fap*) which are XML (*fap*fap*fap*) to process it with XSLT (*fap*fap*fap*) and generate XHTML (*fap*fap*fap*), which is XML (*fap*fap*fap*). For applications to communicate, we development time (and execution time) producing XML (typically with terribly ugly APIs such as *ugh* DOM), then parsing it from the other end.

I may as well suggest a new generation of enterprise Web 3.0 scalable software solutions! Universal XML! By using universal XML, you can make more money and your business will grow and you will have more business business business! It works like this:

Legacy Web 2.0:
<p class="demo">example</p>

Web 3.0 best practices:
<element>
        <name>p</name>
        <attributes>
                <class>
                        <value>demo</value>
                </class>
        </attributes>
        <text>
                example
        </text>
</element>

Start using Web 3.0 today!

My web goes to 11.0 (1)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124390)

What are you doing back on Web 3.0? My web goes to 11.0!

-Don

XASMML will bring back performance (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18124930)

XASMML (eXtensible ASseMbler Markup Language) will enable your corporation to share data with customers with the speed of hardware! This exciting NEW [sic] concept in computer science will eliminate inefficiencies in the transmission stream, and allow you to beat competitiors to the market!
Now included free with Office XPASM! :-D

I feel greasy (1)

HalWasRight (857007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18132074)

Is this like, the late 1990's or what? This article is as breathy as an AI article in Byte Magazine. It is as over-hyped as a pump-and-dump stock spam scam. WHO GIVES A SHIT!?! We're talking about a data encoding scheme, not a polio vacine! Get a lIfE!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?