[xquery-talk] MarkLogic using JSONiq for processing JSON ?

[daniela florescu]

Adam, Ghislain,


Com’ on. Stop running around the bush. I hate hypocrisy in technology.
Reading your emails made me feel back in the communist era, with the perfect usage of a perfect wooden language.

Since when “working well together” and “listening to each other” (what a wonderful world !!!!)…..: guaranteed a good technical result !???
(Maybe they should have voted to see if Galileo was right or not …. wait, actually they DID…. OUPS.)

Since when this guaranteed any logical result, and any good, usable tool for an industry !? 
(Web services would be the first thing that would jump to my mind as a graceful design of a “nice" community that all listened to each other
… as a nightmare equivalent to XQuery 3.1)

More often then not, such a “nice process” ends up in a horrible technical compromise which is good for no-one, and gets abandoned 
by industry VERY, VERY soon.

============


You both prove my point: the design of XQuery 3.1 was done to “help” selfishly and with a very short term vision two-three companies (Saxon, Exist, MarkLogic), and with complete
disregard to the big picture of the needs of querying and processing semi-structured data in the industry (which includes both XML and JSON).

As for the choice between solving:
(a) XSLT maps and arrays (estimated # use cases in the Ks, includes all three eXist, Saxon and MarkLogic) and 
(b) querying JSON (downloads of Mongo+Cassandra+Cloudera+Spark+Couch+…    in the tens of millions of downloads…)


(let alone the comparison in the total sales number…)

……...very intelligently, XQuery 3.1 decided to totally ignore the millions of use cases of Cassandra+Mongo+Cloudera+…., and “serve” Saxon and eXist,
and antagonize all those millions of use cases that need JSON query processing.

Again.

Great.

Thanks for your “contribution" to the industry. 


Dana



> On May 8, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Adam Retter <adam.retter at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> No, all the arguments were all technical
>> 
>> Getting agreement on all these points was a very lengthy process with much heated argument. Although the decisions made were not always the ones I personally advocated, I think the final language works well.
> 
> Absolutely! Whilst I am more of an occasional frequenter and
> contributor to the XQuery WG, having seen the level of collaborative
> work and perseverance that that has gone into adding Maps and Arrays
> to XQuery, I can say that I am impressed.
> 
> From my perspective, it was a difficult process, but everyone worked
> hard together and the technical arguments were always foremost. Whilst
> working under the constraints of backwards compatibility and creating
> a cohesive data model and language, I think the result speaks for
> itself. Certainly many of eXist's users are very happy with the new
> Maps and Arrays work in XQuery 3.1 and we frequently receive positive
> feedback on this.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adam Retter
> 
> skype: adam.retter
> tweet: adamretter
> http://www.adamretter.org.uk