On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Michael Kay wrote: > > > Fair enough and this is good advice for any technology selection but I > > dont think any of us is bringing up this because its based on idle > > chit chat, if you have data contrary to a vast amount of work going > > online, at conferences, books and yes maybe even in pubs be happy to > > see it. > > > > > > I don’t have data – I don’t think anyone does.
Read the original post:
Fwd: ANSWERS to "What’s wrong with XQuery" question
> Part of the answer, I think, is to make performance less reliant on good > optimization. In XSLT , the key() function goes a long way towards this: > by giving programmers a tool to control when indexes are built and used, > performance of many join constructs becomes much more predictable > > I’ve always felt that the anathema felt > in the database query community towards such constructs is misplaced – > alhough it’s great when optimizers are good enough that they aren’t needed, > I’ve seen programmers tearing their hair out trying to second-guess the > optimizer, and in such cases it’s not clear we’re doing programmers a > service. This is indeed somewhat funny.
See the original post:
Requirements on Optimizers [was ANSWERS to "What's
wrong with XQuery" question]
On 7/25/2010 9:51 AM, Martin Probst wrote: > > Part of the answer, I think, is to make performance less reliant on good > > optimization. In XSLT , the key() function goes a long way towards this: > > by giving programmers a tool to control when indexes are built and used, > > performance of many join constructs becomes much more predictable > > > > > > > It might be nice to have language constructs saying ” guarantee to me > that you do this in O(something), otherwise fail”. > That’s exactly right – for applications with sufficient scale, it’s just not enough to know that a given expression will be evaluated correctly: it’s also critical to understand whether indexed lookup will be applied so as to guarantee completion (or failure) before the universe ends
Read more from the original source:
Requirements on Optimizers [was ANSWERS to "What's
wrong with XQuery" question]
Interesting idea In the java and c++ case the libraries are more implementations then specifications And in particular the collection classes (both Languages) the classes themselves Are architected around separating specific algorithm models from abstract non algorithmic interfaces. I don’t see quite the same thing in either xquery languages or stdlibs However I do see it in implementation extensions Maybe when xquery libs achieve the same maturity as java and c++ libs well start to see algorithmic metrics as part of the docs if not the specs David A Lee On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Pavel Minaev wrote: > Nonetheless it’s fairly common, though typically not in the languages > themselves, but rather libraries.
See the article here:
Requirements on Optimizers
blogger template xml blog template blogspot template 3 column blog template html blog template download blog template blog template generator blog lay…
View post:
blogger template xml blog template blogspot template 3 column blog …
Although we were talking about a lack of interest in XML in the web community, I found it rather heartening to see some good participation in the interest of bringing E4X support to Chrome’s V8 engine (as E4X is already in Firefox), with the intention of getting critical mass to lead to adoption by the other browsers. V8 has indicated in theory their willingness to integrate good code, as long as it is produced by a third-party: http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=235#c19 Several there have already mentioned being willing to donate to try to make it happen, including with the hope that if more browsers besides Mozilla support E4X, there may be potential to see it become standard across browsers
Visit link:
E4X and XQuery
If you are making a HTTPService call in Flex, you need to make sure that the domain specified in the url attribute is the domain from where your application was downloaded or there is a crossdomain. xml file granting access to your …
Here is the original post:
Accessing a URL with Flex and YQL when there is no crossdomain.xml …
Linux.com – For the community, by the community, Linux.com is the central source for Linux information, software, documentation, how-tos and answers across the server, desktop/netbook, mobile, and embedded areas.
View post:
Build an Android Twitter app using XML and JavaScript Object …
I think if I were writing a library for a vocabulary where schema validation is the norm (like FpML , say), and assuming that the schema is suitable for use in XQuery (most element names either global or having a named complex type) then I would declare the functions with types that assume the data is pre-validated. I wouldn’t expect client code to be invoking validate{} explicitly – I would expect that most of the time, the function is called to operate directly on input data, which is validated at source outside the query. (But that might not be how Zorba works, I don’t know.) The main reason is that it’s a good idea in an interface definition to be as precise as possible about what you expect to cross the interface
See the rest here:
Schema Typed Parameters and Return Values in Library
Modules
On 19/07/2010 00:16, Philip Fennell wrote: > Whilst in the process of generating some XQuery code via XQueryX I’ve noticed that the area of variable declarations ‘xqx:varDecl’ does not seem to be supported properly/completely by the published XML Schema . > > The following example: > > > NAT_ID > > xs:string > ? > > > > > causes the validation to fail (in oXygen using Xerces ) with this message: > > SystemID: C:Users..
See the original post:
I’ve got an issue with the XQueryX Schema…
