[xquery-talk] Comparing XML Databases to Object Databases

Vyacheslav Sedov vyacheslav.sedov at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 20:00:45 PST 2008


to my mind such "native XML DB" applications as Marklogic & eXist can
bite some extra % in market share, but mostly not from RDBMS, it takes
extra % from web&application servers (PHP, Perl, Java, asp, .Net,
Apache, Tomcat, Zope & others).

Merging database engine & application server into one core - powerful
highly optimized standard-based (XSLT&XQuery) easily parallelizable
(like Haskell) core is good step forward - this core can easily
produce & consume web-services, directly generate XHTML, produce
(consume) MS Office 2007 & OpenOffice documents, take data directly
from XForms, generate XForms directly from XML-Schema (ok - maybe it
should be annotated schema for complex forms), produce "updategrams"
for an MS SQL Server & consume data from RDBMS`s http endpoints, also
it can process RDF & OWL for knowledge management systems. I can bet
that it`s relatively easy to write good eXist-based search engine
(that even can easily deal with "street (X)HTML" by using HTML-tidy

by the way - anyone can recommend good eXist-based web-hosting?

with best wishes,

p.s. About "dealing with the devil":
(also worth of attention all links from r0 to r7 and maybe better to
begin reading from r0 -
- Programmers Stone)

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Michael Kay <mike at saxonica.com> wrote:
> The database market is incredibly conservative and risk-averse, both in
>  relation to new technologies and new suppliers. MySQL and PostgreSQL have
>  shown that you can break the mould in terms of suppliers (but only by
>  cutting the price to zero), but no one has yet proved it in terms of
>  technologies.
>  The advantage of going with a hybrid database is that you are effectively
>  deferring a decision on your technical direction, which makes it an easier
>  decision. The disadvantage is that you end up leaving junior programmers to
>  make the real technical decisions on a case-by-case basis, and they will (a)
>  get it wrong half the time, and (b) fight with each other over which way is
>  best [yes, I've watched this happening, and it's painful]. But that argument
>  won't sway decision-makers who think they can have their cake and eat it,
>  and who often have a dismissive attitude to arguments based on technology
>  anyway.
>  The biggest weakness in the object database market was standards. The
>  companies collaborated on ODMG, but they implemented different parts of it
>  and the products were never interoperable. Also, the technical architecture
>  was a bit of a mess - because of the focus on persistent C++, you ended up
>  with a navigational DML and a query language that bore very little
>  relationship to each other, and with applications that were very closely
>  tied to the physical data structure. So unless you needed the raw speed, for
>  example in CAD applications, there were few benefits. I think that the XML
>  database scene is very much better served in this respect.
>  But however good the technical merits, there's no doubt that XML databases
>  have an uphill struggle convincing corporate decision-makers, especially
>  when the Oracle/DB2/Microsoft sales people are saying "we can do it too, you
>  don't need to take any risks, you don't even have to decide yet what your
>  technical direction is going to be." Many people prefer to stick with the
>  devil they know. Some don't even recognize that they are dealing with the
>  devil...
>  Michael Kay
>  http://www.saxonica.com/
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: talk-bounces at x-query.com
>  > [mailto:talk-bounces at x-query.com] On Behalf Of John Snelson
>  > Sent: 19 March 2008 11:29
>  > To: talk at x-query.com
>  > Subject: [xquery-talk] Comparing XML Databases to Object Databases
>  >
>  > I had a conversation the other day where XML databases were
>  > being compared to object databases. The person I was talking
>  > to suggested that it was inevitable that XML databases would
>  > get subsumed by the existing RDBMSs on the market, just like
>  > object databases had been.
>  >
>  > I haven't had the benefit of experiencing the rise and fall
>  > of object databases, but I have some opinions as to why I
>  > think XML databases have a better chance than object
>  > databases ever had. What does everyone think? Are XML
>  > databases headed for obscurity, or is the time for them right
>  > and the comparison to object databases unfounded?
>  >
>  > John
>  >
>  > --
>  > John Snelson, Oracle Corporation            http://snelson.org.uk/john
>  > Berkeley DB XML:        http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/xml
>  > XQilla:                                  http://xqilla.sourceforge.net
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > talk at x-query.com
>  > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>  _______________________________________________
>  talk at x-query.com
>  http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk

More information about the talk mailing list