From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.90.5 with SMTP id bs5mr2615900pab.35.1345620728862; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Path: p10ni128759655pbh.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:32:26 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502cd701$0$6568$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502d3c68$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <502e9039$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <40tmogy4d1b5.1kc2gm8qfrkdu.dlg@40tude.net> <503240ed$0$6569$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <50326457$0$6576$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1qril0ny3eczr$.1vlhpbrjyyb8k.dlg@40tude.net> <503375ac$0$6565$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1vglgit7vnu4l$.2ytljabrhk2.dlg@40tude.net> <5033986c$0$6573$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <62h5nifarvom.1myeqdyevhefq.dlg@40tude.net> <5033b4d8$0$6571$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <5033ff28$0$6185$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-22T09:32:26+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:35:35 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote: > Dmitry, > >> The problem of transformation XML documents does not exist. I don't see why >> data exchange needs that. I don't see why any transformations would be >> necessary between systems. > > You don't see why because you seem to try hard to deny XML any benefit. It is not a hard try. Yes, I have an opinion on XML because in my job (automation systems and embedded) XML became a real plague. I asked others to put up a practical case where XML might be useful, technically useful, rather than per popularity vote or legacy. Nobody proposed any. > Exchanging structured data is an important point. It is an important problem, yes, but XML is poor for that. XML 1. is extremely inefficient 2. fails to capture the structure (e.g. recursive, interlinked structures) 3. lacks even basic data types (everything is string, not even weakly typed) 4. lacks any means to describe the semantics (e.g. no ADT), 5. incapable to validate data (because of 4) 6. requires complex, resource consuming, vulnerable infrastructure like parsers 7. is not redundant and at the same time absolutely permissive (requires complex validation of itself) > Before XML we were > using many format and we had to write parsers for all those formats in > every languages. Now with XML (and the corresponding xsd, or wsdl) it is > possible to parse (and *validate*) any data set coming from any > applications. And it is still so with XML, because XML considered for data exchange is not of the application level. It is just a very ugly and unsafe transport/presentation level protocol. The application level is still to develop and XML is no relief, it just complicates things. As for transport/presentation there is little need in any parsing at all. So, again, taking the data exchange issue, what is the particular [sub]problem XML solves? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de