XML integration [was]Re: Can Rev be used as server database?

[Mark Brownell]

revolution at knowledgeworks.plus.com & Alex Rice wrote:

>> I asked what Runrev's plans for XML were, and pointed out that it 
>> seemed to be a bit unclear as to the purpose of including XML 
>> functionality in the latest version.
>
> Huh? Maybe I don't understand the question. Obviously the purpose was 
> to have an XML parser. I'm using it in my project. OK it's only 1 file 
> of XML I'm parsing and could have easily done it with regular 
> expressions instead- but since the XML parser is there I'm using it.
>
>>  Geoff Canyon responded to say he has a stack that can transform a 
>> Rev app to XML and can transform XML to Rev.  But it doesn't work 
>> with Rev 2, so as far as I can see, they still don't have any clear 
>> plan for XML integration.
>
> Probably lack of time.

& a few minutes ago: revolution at knowledgeworks.plus.com wrote:

> With regard to XML ... It is cool to have an XML parser in Rev.  But 
> the potential is vast, and I hope to see some sign that Runrev have a 
> strategic direction with this.  For example, it would be nice for them 
> to integrate version control from within  Rev.  This surely must be of 
> use to _all_ Rev developers.  And since CVS seems to be coming the 
> standard and is open source, I see no reason why something like 
> Geoff's XML stack couldn't be fully integrated into Rev along with a 
> CVS module.  That way one could just convert a stack into human 
> readable XML, store it in the CVS repository, and reconvert it back 
> into a stack.  Furthermore, we could perform diffs on this so that we 
> could see what had changed between two versions, etc.  Even if Runrev 
> do not want the hassle of integrating with CVS, it would be beneficial 
> if stacks could actually be emitted as XML to the filesystem so they 
> could be diffed.
>
> As it is, it looks like XML support was included, but that there is no 
> strategic direction on this.  Other platforms were at this level of 
> XML integration 3 or more years ago.  Maybe with the further 
> integration of Metacard and Runrev we will see more of their strategic 
> vision.
>
> Anyway, these proved to be a very pleasant and thoughtful afternoon :-)
>
> Regards
> Bernard

I don't know about CVS but I wrote this just before reading your last 
post:

You can create your own Rev stack-conversion based on validating XML 
with your own DTD, using well-formed XML and Rev's new XML 
capabilities.  Geoff Canyon had his own parser if I remember correctly. 
Anyway he must have written a process to convert a stack to XML. I'm 
sure that a transformation process could be written that converts  
Geoff Canyon's XML to a version that the new parser/DTD could read.

As far as Rev 2 having a "clear plan for XML integration" I doubt that 
putting stacks into XML and XML into stacks qualifies as a benchmark 
for XML integration. I would think there are very few uses where that 
capability would be necessary; I can think of only two off-hand. 
Someone could use high-level-encrypted XML to hide application 
processes or another could use XML to transmit business process. There 
is one problem with the second use. XML for business process is already 
forming around the development of a framework for the creation of BPML, 
Business Process Markup Language, which is heavily leaning towards SOAP 
as the model to integrate around. If there wear any "clear plan for XML 
integration," I would want to see added my own suggestion for a text 
based pull-parser that works on the XML document before it is opened 
into the tree mode. I would add to that the ability for the XML parser 
that exists now to handle namespaces. This XML namespace handling 
capability is at the heart of part of the RDF/semantic web framework 
development work as well as the human-markup language experiment & for 
the development of a framework for artificial intelligence.

I talked with someone on the XML development team for Rev 2 about the 
pull parser and to their credit they might be adding it or something 
like it to a Rev 2.5 future release. So to their credit there is 
definitely a "clear plan for XML integration."

just my (2^32 - 4294967294) cents
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/attachments/20030712/44999154/attachment.bin>