If a specific relational database decides to provide some XML database features (XPath, XQuery) it does not make my point about relational databases not true.
That's not true. If you've the Oracle documentation to hand, read about interMedia (formerly known as ConText). It gives you extensions to SQL to use XPath-like statements to select from within an XML document in a CLOB.
I don't have the documentation, but from your description it's able to use XPath expressions because the relational database can emulate an XML database anyway. So the problems with a relational database remain and are solved by providing an XML interface!:)
I don't see how this make what I say not true. I am just saying that XML databases have their place. They can be misused, but so can relational databases.
Q. Aside from putting it in as a BLOB, How can anyone put a document such as the one he's written into a relational database?
A. It can't be done.
Q. What do you lose by putting a document in as a BLOB?
A. Granularity. The ability to have the database sort and extract parts of files at the tag level. For example, take a site that has an essay spread over 10 pages. Do you store each section as a database record? That's not clean, as what if we want to break that essay up over 5 pages? It seems rather strange to hardcode into the database presentation logic, so webpage = database record is a workable but inelegant model. Do you store the essay as one BLOB and extract substrings? Extracting substrings is certainly not as faster as an XML database, though it is smarter than 'webpage = database record'. And here we have a scenario where an XML database might suit, and would easily outperform a relational database (yes, Tamino or Excelon do outperform relational databases some of the time!;).
#######
Here's a general rule of thumb, kids. When you read a post bashing another database model, bashing another operating system, or bashing another programming language, just realise that the poster is a jock who refuses to see where the alternative suits, and where the alternative doesn't suit. They're not about creating understanding, they're bashers.. They're not informative.
I know you're going to say "But it looks like shit". Fuck you. the web is about content. You think Slashdot got to be popular because it's loaded with flash animations and background midi music?!!
Slashdot has design. Design can be content. Usability is assisted by good design, not bad design (although you seem to group all design similarly).
You have not solved the problem, as you claim, as they are talking about DHTML, not HTML.
Man you keep bitching about this. Let me get this straight now. You are bitching and moaning about the fact that you have to type --with-xml when you build it. Is that right?
No. No. No. Read. Comprehend. Post. And I must say how very unlike you it is of you not to read my posts and for you to invent my argument as you go.
Maybe if I repost what I've already said again and again you'll read it. Then again, maybe you're insane...
"What is default will spread more than what is optional. Recognising this has allowed programmers to rely on features."
"...in 90% of the installed PHP base out there there is no XML support"
If I offer PHP software for download then in practice more people will use it and be able to use it (ie. generic php hosts) if I use default features. With your take on it I shouldn't consider what's default and what's not. Your ignorance in saying "Who the hell cares what is 'default' and what is not" states that defaults don't matter. When Redhat includes GLIBC by default, years ago, programmers could finally use it. It's not a problem downloading and configuring software on my box, it's the social situation of releasing software. Your beliefs go against PHP's programmers who decide what should be included by default.
You continue your rude, arrogant, and angry posturing. There won't be any posts responding to you, freak.
Who the hell cares what is "default" and what is not.
PHP programmers, me, and apparently a few others.
What is default will spread more than what is optional. Recognising this has allowed programmers to rely on features.
You always have to include at least one thing or another or you are going to get a pretty useless php build.
By default PHP is "pretty useless". Heh.
Nobody is the same, but if 50% of people are compiling in GD support then it should be included to save them the effort. Making defaults suit the most people is a great thing.
When did I ever say that I had not installed it? When did I ever say that the issue was with running the software I want on my system alone?
Again, you seem unable to distinguish between your own cliches and my posts - between your imagination and reality.
And you have the gall to call me a moron. Seek help, buddy.
Look you obnoxious boy, when did I ever say it wasn't possible? Where did I ever say that the issue I have with PHP was to do with lack of support for XML?
I didn't. You're an obnoxious git who argues against cliches of his own invention.
However, I did say "there's no way in the standard PHP build to deal with XML" because in 90% of the installed PHP base out there there is no XML support. As AC said,
"GD could be configured too, but now it's standard because they understand that being in the base distro has social advantages. Why not XML too"
The PHP programmers obviously recognise the distinction between being included in the standard build and being an optional extra. You insult me for making the same distinction. Not including it by default means it won't be available on 90% of the installed PHP hosts out there, meaning that those offering (OSS) PHP software for download can't rely on others having those libraries. Notice the distinction?
I'm not saying include everything by default - as I'm sure you'll extrapolate my point to. I am saying that XML support should be default, like GD.
You can't even talk respectfully to strangers. You're a freak.
I said "there's no way in the standard PHP build to deal with XML", and those PHP functions you mention require the external Expat libraries, right?
Why doesn't PHP break off MySQL and Postgres support into optional libraries? Just recompile with some command line options and include the library in your php.ini. The feature's there, so why complain about mysql and postgres support? What's included by default is important.
They see mysql and postgres and db2(!) as required features that would just be annoying to have to bother getting to work. They don't see XML as a required feature yet. Doesn't that strike you as weird?
Well, I'm talking about the limitations I hit when I try to write in PHP. It's been this way for years now with no great changes. I'm not sure whether others want these fixed or if -- although present in other languages -- they're generally unused. 4.3 was supposed to be the OO release, and it seems that on Slashdot OSS problems are only discussed when a problem is solved. Here are some more problems I've experienced. Meh.
That's the problem though, that being "configured" for PHP means that I can't use any of the PHP hosts out there, and its certainly more difficult to configure PHP on a Windows OS:(
You've obviously seen the Freedom Downtime movie if you're quoting the bubblegum bit.
He didn't use any of the credit cards. He didn't actually hurt any person, he did hurt the the perceived security of Netcom. He was not proven as the person who took the CC numbers (he may have gotten them from the hundreds of others that had it).
It's not that he didn't do something wrong. No one (including Kevin) says that what he didn't wasn't wrong. The government also did bad when they punished him to that extreme degree. What do you think an appropriate punishment would be? Is that out of line with the government's decision? That's the point.
One of the problems I'm having is that there's no way in the standard PHP build to deal with XML. I either have to treat it as a string and write regular expressions (which, as anyone who knows the regexp xml problem, isn't reliable) or build my own with some external xml library, meaning that as I want to allow others to use my code I have to get each user to recompile too (which is like asking people to recompile their kernel, some will do it, some won't, and there's _usually_ no good reason why it had to happen in the first place).
Does this release change what's bundled in the base XML support? They mention function call changes but usually those functions are useless without a recompile.
PHP is still mostly a web page language. XML support should be just bread and butter to it. I need it to deal with RSS or RDF. I need it to deal with user input (if I want to do XHTML I don't want a user typing posts that are malformed - right now I have no way of knowing that).
//
Php has strip_tags() which, naturally, strips tags from a string. But as there's little functional difference between tags and attributes it seems strange that I'm unable to strip attributes with as easy a syntax (yes, I have to use regexps again).
//
I hope this doesn't sound too down on PHP. It's a good language. It's just not a great language like Java or.NET (lets face it, OO in PHP isn't great, and that's what most people have been waiting on PHP 4.3 to fix)
Re:Put blame where it belongs...
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 1
It's not nvidia licensing in that it's not possible to distribute it, it's licencing in that it's not an open source piece of code which is incompatible with the open distro Redhat are trying to make.
ASP.NET theoretically blows both out of the water. It's a good idea - high level concept tags replaced with HTML tags at runtime - but in Microsoft practice they fuck over non Microsoft browsers.
Re:Using PHP on a professional site
on
Professional PHP4
·
· Score: 2
I like PHP. I write in PHP. I release OSS forum software that uses MySQL/Postgres. I've been doing this for 4 years.
I haven't OO'd my PHP because I know the implementation sucks. I'm patiently waiting for PHP 4.3 (or whatever it is), and then PHP 5.
I'm not sure about this page in particular, but I am sure that Netscape 4.08 (the browser) cannot display NCR unicode characters without a charset to help it along. (btw. 4.79 is the suite number, not the browser)
What you call 'entities' aren't stand alone definitions of characters, they require a charset. #8220 and #8221 map to unicode characters, and as slashdot doesn't have a unicode charset it's up to the browser to be leniant and assume that they meant Unicode.
Re:You might remember me from such films as...
on
Kiwi Geeks Seek Domain
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
This makes sense
If a specific relational database decides to provide some XML database features (XPath, XQuery) it does not make my point about relational databases not true.
I don't see how this make what I say not true. I am just saying that XML databases have their place. They can be misused, but so can relational databases.
A. It can't be done.
Q. What do you lose by putting a document in as a BLOB?
A. Granularity. The ability to have the database sort and extract parts of files at the tag level. For example, take a site that has an essay spread over 10 pages. Do you store each section as a database record? That's not clean, as what if we want to break that essay up over 5 pages? It seems rather strange to hardcode into the database presentation logic, so webpage = database record is a workable but inelegant model. Do you store the essay as one BLOB and extract substrings? Extracting substrings is certainly not as faster as an XML database, though it is smarter than 'webpage = database record'. And here we have a scenario where an XML database might suit, and would easily outperform a relational database (yes, Tamino or Excelon do outperform relational databases some of the time! ;).
#######
Here's a general rule of thumb, kids. When you read a post bashing another database model, bashing another operating system, or bashing another programming language, just realise that the poster is a jock who refuses to see where the alternative suits, and where the alternative doesn't suit. They're not about creating understanding, they're bashers.. They're not informative.
Slashdot has design. Design can be content. Usability is assisted by good design, not bad design (although you seem to group all design similarly).
You have not solved the problem, as you claim, as they are talking about DHTML, not HTML.
IBM Pixie Dust
Maybe if I repost what I've already said again and again you'll read it. Then again, maybe you're insane...
If I offer PHP software for download then in practice more people will use it and be able to use it (ie. generic php hosts) if I use default features. With your take on it I shouldn't consider what's default and what's not. Your ignorance in saying "Who the hell cares what is 'default' and what is not" states that defaults don't matter. When Redhat includes GLIBC by default, years ago, programmers could finally use it. It's not a problem downloading and configuring software on my box, it's the social situation of releasing software. Your beliefs go against PHP's programmers who decide what should be included by default.
You continue your rude, arrogant, and angry posturing. There won't be any posts responding to you, freak.
What is default will spread more than what is optional. Recognising this has allowed programmers to rely on features.
By default PHP is "pretty useless". Heh.Nobody is the same, but if 50% of people are compiling in GD support then it should be included to save them the effort. Making defaults suit the most people is a great thing.
When did I ever say that I had not installed it? When did I ever say that the issue was with running the software I want on my system alone?
Again, you seem unable to distinguish between your own cliches and my posts - between your imagination and reality.
And you have the gall to call me a moron. Seek help, buddy.
I didn't. You're an obnoxious git who argues against cliches of his own invention.
However, I did say "there's no way in the standard PHP build to deal with XML" because in 90% of the installed PHP base out there there is no XML support. As AC said,
The PHP programmers obviously recognise the distinction between being included in the standard build and being an optional extra. You insult me for making the same distinction. Not including it by default means it won't be available on 90% of the installed PHP hosts out there, meaning that those offering (OSS) PHP software for download can't rely on others having those libraries. Notice the distinction?
I'm not saying include everything by default - as I'm sure you'll extrapolate my point to. I am saying that XML support should be default, like GD.
You can't even talk respectfully to strangers. You're a freak.
Thanks!
Why doesn't PHP break off MySQL and Postgres support into optional libraries? Just recompile with some command line options and include the library in your php.ini. The feature's there, so why complain about mysql and postgres support? What's included by default is important.
They see mysql and postgres and db2(!) as required features that would just be annoying to have to bother getting to work. They don't see XML as a required feature yet. Doesn't that strike you as weird?
Well, I'm talking about the limitations I hit when I try to write in PHP. It's been this way for years now with no great changes. I'm not sure whether others want these fixed or if -- although present in other languages -- they're generally unused. 4.3 was supposed to be the OO release, and it seems that on Slashdot OSS problems are only discussed when a problem is solved. Here are some more problems I've experienced. Meh.
That's the problem though, that being "configured" for PHP means that I can't use any of the PHP hosts out there, and its certainly more difficult to configure PHP on a Windows OS :(
He didn't use any of the credit cards. He didn't actually hurt any person, he did hurt the the perceived security of Netcom. He was not proven as the person who took the CC numbers (he may have gotten them from the hundreds of others that had it).
It's not that he didn't do something wrong. No one (including Kevin) says that what he didn't wasn't wrong. The government also did bad when they punished him to that extreme degree. What do you think an appropriate punishment would be? Is that out of line with the government's decision? That's the point.
Does this release change what's bundled in the base XML support? They mention function call changes but usually those functions are useless without a recompile.
PHP is still mostly a web page language. XML support should be just bread and butter to it. I need it to deal with RSS or RDF. I need it to deal with user input (if I want to do XHTML I don't want a user typing posts that are malformed - right now I have no way of knowing that).
//
Php has strip_tags() which, naturally, strips tags from a string. But as there's little functional difference between tags and attributes it seems strange that I'm unable to strip attributes with as easy a syntax (yes, I have to use regexps again).
//
I hope this doesn't sound too down on PHP. It's a good language. It's just not a great language like Java or .NET (lets face it, OO in PHP isn't great, and that's what most people have been waiting on PHP 4.3 to fix)
It's not nvidia licensing in that it's not possible to distribute it, it's licencing in that it's not an open source piece of code which is incompatible with the open distro Redhat are trying to make.
ASP.NET theoretically blows both out of the water. It's a good idea - high level concept tags replaced with HTML tags at runtime - but in Microsoft practice they fuck over non Microsoft browsers.
I haven't OO'd my PHP because I know the implementation sucks. I'm patiently waiting for PHP 4.3 (or whatever it is), and then PHP 5.
(second time's a charm)
http://community.sourceforge.net
I'm not sure about this page in particular, but I am sure that Netscape 4.08 (the browser) cannot display NCR unicode characters without a charset to help it along. (btw. 4.79 is the suite number, not the browser)
Heh heh heh...
You can already guess which browser needs the charset... Netscape 4.
What you call 'entities' aren't stand alone definitions of characters, they require a charset. #8220 and #8221 map to unicode characters, and as slashdot doesn't have a unicode charset it's up to the browser to be leniant and assume that they meant Unicode.
We can only try.