Wrox Programmer Forums
Go Back   Wrox Programmer Forums > XML > XML
XML General XML discussions.
Welcome to the p2p.wrox.com Forums.

You are currently viewing the XML section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of software programmers and website developers including Wrox book authors and readers. New member registration was closed in 2019. New posts were shut off and the site was archived into this static format as of October 1, 2020. If you require technical support for a Wrox book please contact http://hub.wiley.com
Old January 22nd, 2006, 12:21 PM
Authorized User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 14
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Popularity of XML

I am new to XML and I am learning it. Because I am doing java programming and XML is java's sidekick language. But as I learn it, I wonder why it is so popular. It has a hierarchical structure, tags for delimiters, and dtd, xsd..etc files associated with a xml document. In some cases in my company national middleware that uses XML cannot handle very large amounts and was re-directed to use non-xml data stream. Everything points to overhead. Why is XML so popular when it has a lot of overhead?
Old January 22nd, 2006, 06:40 PM
mhkay's Avatar
Wrox Author
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,962
Thanks: 0
Thanked 292 Times in 287 Posts

That's a good question and for those of us immersed in the detail of the subject, it's a good idea to stand back occasionally and think about such basic questions.

I think there are two answers. Firstly, XML offers a lot of functionality for a quite small cost. Secondly, it's popular because it's popular: once something acquires a certain critical mass, everyone uses it simply because there are benefits in doing things the same way as everyone else.

As far as overhead is concerned, remember that the biggest costs in any IT system are people costs. XML might cost you a bit more in processing power or in network bandwidth, but it succeeded where other more efficient approaches (such as ASN.1) failed because it's simpler and therefore cheaper to implement. Not just a bit cheaper, a lot cheaper: ASN.1 compilers were selling for six-figure sums, but XML parsers were free, because it was possible for amateurs to write XML parsers in a couple of weeks. Similarly, the fact that XML is human-readable and ASN.1 isn't makes a vast difference to the effort involved in debugging incorrect messages and getting to the point where applications interoperate successfully.

One of the odd things about computing is that the things that prove successful are very often things that don't seem to be technically optimal. But I think you'll usually find that they hit some kind of "sweet spot" in being there at the right time, at the right cost, being easy to understand and implement, and good enough to meet practical user needs.

Also remember that 90% or more of applications aren't performance critical. Simple technology designed for the 90% of applications with less demanding requirements tends to win in the market over complex technology designed for the top 10%.

Michael Kay
Author, XSLT Programmer's Reference and XPath 2.0 Programmer's Reference
Old January 22nd, 2006, 06:50 PM
Authorized User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 14
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Thanks for your response. I will that in mind as I learn more about XML.

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SQL Server 2005 XML: FOR XML PATH -> cdata? stoves SQL Server 2005 1 July 8th, 2008 02:40 AM
Creating XML doc ; writing string(xml format) into KamalRaturi XML 5 May 28th, 2008 05:51 AM
VB.net, adding XML data to an existing XML file saikoboarder XML 11 April 17th, 2008 04:19 PM
xml invalid top level from ASP write XML(solution) g000we XML 0 August 9th, 2006 03:56 AM
DTS Package, XML task. Read XML file and store it Victoria SQL Server DTS 0 July 24th, 2006 02:43 PM

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.