It can.

Post #178,129 by ChrisR 10/6/04 11:26:09 PM Reply	It can. But what I want is some enforcement on the client side before I even see the data on the server. Ok, so the rules still have to be enforced there, but I want to have an objective set of relational integrity involved in the construction of the xml documents. We're talking about taking stuff offline and allowing an interchange of inserts and updates via uploading the xml documents. I really don't want a database on the client side - just a set of xml schema to act as a guide to the client.
Post #178,147 by CRConrad 10/7/04 4:10:42 AM Reply	WHY don't you want a DB on the client side? Given that you want to enforce relational integrity, which is built-in to DBs, and NOT built-in to XML... Given that, then if your "just a set of xml schema to act as a guide..." means, as it seems to do (cf, "just"!), that you think "just" XML is somehow easier and simpler than a DB... if that's what you mean, aren't you kidding yourself? In stead of trying to re-implement RDBMS functionality in XML, it must be much easier to just USE an RDBMS. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #178,153 by pwhysall 10/7/04 6:37:30 AM Reply	From a non-programmer viewpoint Infrastructure to support XML schema validation is somewhat easier to deploy than RDBMS infrastructure. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #178,168 by CRConrad 10/7/04 8:42:56 AM Reply	Wrong. Depends on how you define your terms, and... ...you're obviously not defining them right. To wit, for one thing: "[i]nfrastructure to support XML schema validation" obviously isn't such a trivial little thing as you seem to be trying to imply: None that the Critter has found yet is apparently capable of doing what he wants. Stands to reason that, if you define "[i]nfrastructure to support XML schema validation" as an XML schema-validator capable of enforcing relational integrity -- which, after all, is the operative requirement here -- then it'll be considerably LESS "lightweight" than whatever system you're referring to in your sweeping general claim that they are "somewhat easier to deploy". For another, the reverse of the coin, you are just as obviously also trying to imply that "RDBMS infrastructure" MUST, of necessity, be some humongous monster... Newsflash from the Oracle consultant: As opposed to what far too many people (a group[], BTW, you seem to be doing your best to declare yourself a part of) think, there ARE actually other RDBMSes than ours; many of them, in fact, so lightweight that I think it's not at all impossible to find an RDBMS that is "easier to deploy than" a relational-integrity-enforcing XML schema-validator. Especially if you can't find ANY relational-integrity-enforcing XML schema-validator in the first place; then actually even Oracle would be "somewhat easier to deploy", wouldn't it...? [] That tricky class of users at the next step up from those absolute bottom-feeders who nod knowingly and say "Yeah, SQL, I've heard of it; it's a Microsoft database"; i.e, the guys who know just enough to be dangerous. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #178,170 by pwhysall 10/7/04 8:50:39 AM Reply	Well, I see your point... ...but feel compelled to point out that Moz and IE can validate an XML document against an XML DTD or schema. I'd lay odds that you could achieve some degree of relational testing with that. More than that, though, and you need Cleverness that might cause Pain to roll out. Of course, client-side RDBMS systems bring their own questions of data synchronisation and transfer that I'll gladly defer to your good self. Personally, I'd be inclined toward the solution that delivers XHTML 1.0 and nothing else to the desktop, but that's just me. [Note. Googling for XML and databases is frustrating! All you get is how all the old tools can now emit/talk XML!] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #178,208 by Simon_Jester 10/7/04 11:26:58 AM Reply	Neither right or wrong...different paradigms the idea behind RDBMS is to store data once; with minimum space used, maximum speed to find data. Thus the idea of a parent-child relationship. An object is broken into two parts, the reused part (the parent) and the specific part (the child). Say a customer and their address(es). XML is a way of storing/describing a data object. It can support a parent-child relationship within itself, for instance a customer with a listing of say 0+ addresses. However, it the paradigm dictates that the object itself should be complete.

Welcome to IWETHEY!