[AccessD] XML

This is an interesting link:

http://www.vb123.com/kb/index.html?200308_pv_word.htm


Came from Gary Robinson's newsletter.

I might play with this concept tomorrow.

Max


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust
Sent: 03 September 2009 21:14
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] XML

In .net it takes a couple of lines of code to write whatever data you
want to xml.  I did NOT, please note, insist that xml was superior to
all over methods or for your purposes.  You're arguing from your
specific situation and viewpoint.  It's a case of YMMV, in case you
missed it.

Charlotte Foust

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:04 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] XML

I am just pointing out the insanity of XML as a major data transport.

Let's take an example.  I have an actual job to copy about 70 million
names and addresses out to a file and send to a processor who is going
to process the file and send it back to me with ethnicity fields.
Obviously they do not use XML, but if you go with the "XML is the ideal
transport mechanism for internet transfers" mentality...

Can you imagine some twit writing a web service that takes the name /
address fields out of a database, wraps it in XML to send over the
internet and then tries to process 60 million records.

Another example, I actually received 5 files the other day, downloaded
off of an FTP.  Each file contained roughly 8 million names and
addresses plus some other fields.  The data came in as comma delimited
CSV files.  Each file was roughly 500 megs of text (zipped of course),
and a tiny format file.  Now, instead of CSV, do that in XML.  The 500
megs would instantly turn into 5 gigs (or almost certainly more than
that).

How can you possibly think that XML is superior for such purposes.

I am not interested in a huge debate on this matter.  It is just so
obviously silly that I can't imagine an argument ensuing.

 >Could it be you're caught in the mdb mode of putting your eggs all in
one basket?

I'm caught in whatever asininity the other end imposes on me.  I just
pray they don't impose XML for these kinds of things.

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com


-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com