Other things I don't get (WAS: Re: A Joeish Erlang distribution (long))

[Wiger Ulf]

I can see one good thing about XML:

- It's one syntax that everyone seems to be able to agree upon. As soon as
you say the 'X' word, people stop arguing. Since it's fairly easy to map XML
to Erlang tuples, you can sneak some Erlang in there under the XML cloak.
It's even perfectly OK to propose XML for log files in telecom systems. We
should do that in OTP as well, even though you'll only get half as much
relevant data into a given wrap log. (-:

Apart from that, XML doesn't solve nearly as many problems as it creates.
It's a typical example of a solution that's superficially simple but leads
to endless complexity when applied to a slightly bigger problem. SOAP is
hideous, and so is WSDL, XMLSchema, etc. XMLQuery looks nice in the
beginning, until you get to the section, page after page, of "unresolved
issues", most of which originate from the fact that XML is the chosen
syntax.

/Uffe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Per Bergqvist" <per@REDACTED>
To: "Niclas Eklund" <Niclas.Eklund@REDACTED>
Cc: "Per Bergqvist" <per@REDACTED>; <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
Sent: den 29 januari 2003 00:16
Subject: Other things I don't get (WAS: Re: A Joeish Erlang distribution
(long))


> Regarding parlay they have now started to publish xml/soap interfaces.
> xml/soap for traffical interfaces is even more bizarro.
>
> I asked a colleague the other day if he could explain one good thing
> with xml and the funny thing is that he was totally confused about
> this too.
>
> If I think xml as such is totally overrated, I believe that soap is
> pure stupidity.  Since this xml hysteria has been bugging for quite
> some time now it would be interesting to hear others opinions.
>
> Am I way off here ???
> (I'm sorry if this all sounds like I have pms, but I truly believe
> that traffical interfaces should have simple and efficient codings.)
>
> /Per
>