Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Rys wrote: > > Dear James > > > 2. anyone can give a rundown on why they went for a diff technique > > rather than a direct pat specification with a replacement value? > > The scenarios that we tried to address were mid-tier caches that want to > synchronize with the database. Direct pat[h] specifications with replacement > values would not fit that well into these scenarios and would go more > towards an update language that would require a query language. that sounds more reasonable. i suppose i'd have to have read the scenariour to know how these caches were expected to behave, but i'm still surprised that one would want to work out a yet another addressing mechanism. > While XPath > could cover some aspects, we did not want to invent something in that space > before XML Query and its relationship to update languages is clear. well, sometimes it's hard not to. > > Please note that people can design their own XML update language in > conjunction with the OpenXML XML rowset provider inside T-SQL stored > procedures. > i was wondering 'cause i had done an update mechanism against an object database and found (for the large object case which im mentioned in the previous message) ended up using path-based adressing...
|
