You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xindice-users@xml.apache.org by "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu> on 2003/04/09 06:23:11 UTC
XMLObjects
Hi everyone,
I have a question concerning the removal of XMLObject in 1.1.
I was interested in possibly building an XMLObject to store very large
"table like" fragments of my XML documents in a relation db that would
be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice. But now I here that
XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is there any alternative
for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would it be possible for me
to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my needs?
-Mark Diggory
Re: XMLObjects
Posted by "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>.
Kurt Ward wrote:
>As far as "including" parts
>of the xml from relational data, I'm not convinced
>that it will work the way you intend it to.
>
Hmm, I'd like to hear your argument as to why it might not. It might
save me going down a dead end path caused by my own naivety.
>When I
>have something ready for use with the system I am
>working on, I will post to the list.
>
>
Great, I'll look forward to hearing about it in the future.
-Mark
>--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, It does sound of interest, I guess I need to
>>clarify the goal I'm
>>reaching for and see if what your working on can
>>meet that goal:
>>
>>I have xml documents that I want to place into a
>>Xindice Collection that
>>generally look like this:
>>
>><codeBook>
>> <stdyDscr>
>> <!-- these sections are reasonable in size and
>>can go directly
>>into Xindice-->
>> </stdyDscr>
>> <dataDscr>
>> <!- this section is not reasonable in size,
>>variables can number
>>in the thousands and contain large amounts of
>>information. I want these
>>sections to be in a different storage solution but
>>be retrievable with
>>he rest of the document through Xindice itself. -->
>> <var id="1">....</var>
>> <var id="2">....</var>
>> <var id="3">....</var>
>> <var id="4">....</var>
>> ...
>> <var id="NNNN">....</var>
>> </dataDscr>
>><codeBook>
>>
>>When I do an xpath query in Xindice, I want to be
>>able to search the var
>>section as well. But I wanted it to be through an
>>XMLObject that was
>>working with an relational db to improve the
>>performance of that subtree.
>>
>>Would your solution be applicable in this case or is
>>it an XML-RPC
>>solution that would fall outside of Xindice via a
>>different XML-RPC
>>command/ interface?
>>
>>thank you,
>>Mark
>>
>>
>>Kurt Ward wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mark,
>>>
>>>You can write custom functions via the XML-RPC
>>>interface. You won't be able to call them from the
>>>XML:DB API, but you CAN call them directly via
>>>XML-RPC. The only downside is you would have to
>>>
>>>
>>run
>>
>>
>>>the build process each time you added a new
>>>
>>>
>>extension.
>>
>>
>>>I have been working on a system outside of the
>>>
>>>
>>current
>>
>>
>>>CVS tree (mostly because it does not support
>>>
>>>
>>Xindice
>>
>>
>>>in embedded mode) that is similar to the way
>>>XMLObjects worked in 1.0, but less complicated and
>>>does not require you to run the build. It also
>>>
>>>
>>allows
>>
>>
>>>for restrictions such as 'run from localhost only'
>>>
>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>'require SSL protocol' as execution options for
>>>example. Let me know if this sounds interesting to
>>>you...
>>>
>>>Kurt
>>>
>>>--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations?
>>>>
>>>>Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a question concerning the removal of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>XMLObject in 1.1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was interested in possibly building an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>XMLObject
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>to store very large
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"table like" fragments of my XML documents in a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>relation db that would
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessible from Xindice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>But
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>now I here that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>there any alternative
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>for my use case that Xindice is planning? Or would
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>it be possible for me
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to "resurrect" an XMLObject interface for my
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>needs?
>>
>>
>>>>>-Mark Diggory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: XMLObjects
Posted by Kurt Ward <ku...@yahoo.com>.
I am simply saying that server extensions or "stored
procedure" type customizations are somewhat still
available. Whether or not your project can benefit
from this, I'm not sure. As far as "including" parts
of the xml from relational data, I'm not convinced
that it will work the way you intend it to. When I
have something ready for use with the system I am
working on, I will post to the list.
Kurt
--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
wrote:
> Yes, It does sound of interest, I guess I need to
> clarify the goal I'm
> reaching for and see if what your working on can
> meet that goal:
>
> I have xml documents that I want to place into a
> Xindice Collection that
> generally look like this:
>
> <codeBook>
> <stdyDscr>
> <!-- these sections are resonable in size and
> can go directly
> into Xindice-->
> </stdyDscr>
> <dataDscr>
> <!- this section is not reasonable in size,
> variables can number
> in the thousands and contain large amounts of
> information. I want these
> sections to be in a different storage solution but
> be retrievable witht
> he rest of the document through Xindice itself. -->
> <var id="1">....</var>
> <var id="2">....</var>
> <var id="3">....</var>
> <var id="4">....</var>
> ...
> <var id="NNNN">....</var>
> </dataDscr>
> <codeBook>
>
> When I do an xpath query in Xindice, I want to be
> able to search the var
> section as well. But I wanted it to be through an
> XMLObject that was
> working with an relational db to improve the
> performance of that subtree.
>
> Would your solution be applicable in this case or is
> it an XML-RPC
> solution that would fall outside of Xindice via a
> different XML-RPC
> command/ interface?
>
> thank you,
> Mark
>
>
> Kurt Ward wrote:
>
> >Mark,
> >
> >You can write custom functions via the XML-RPC
> >interface. You won't be able to call them from the
> >XML:DB API, but you CAN call them directly via
> >XML-RPC. The only downside is you would have to
> run
> >the build process each time you added a new
> extension.
> >I have been working on a system outside of the
> current
> >CVS tree (mostly because it does not support
> Xindice
> >in embedded mode) that is similar to the way
> >XMLObjects worked in 1.0, but less complicated and
> >does not require you to run the build. It also
> allows
> >for restrictions such as 'run from localhost only'
> and
> >'require SSL protocol' as execution options for
> >example. Let me know if this sounds interesting to
> >you...
> >
> >Kurt
> >
> >--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations?
> >>
> >>Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>>I have a question concerning the removal of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>XMLObject in 1.1.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I was interested in possibly building an
> XMLObject
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to store very large
> >>
> >>
> >>>"table like" fragments of my XML documents in a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>relation db that would
> >>
> >>
> >>>be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice.
> But
> >>>
> >>>
> >>now I here that
> >>
> >>
> >>>XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>there any alternative
> >>
> >>
> >>>for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would
> >>>
> >>>
> >>it be possible for me
> >>
> >>
> >>>to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my
> needs?
> >>>
> >>>-Mark Diggory
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: XMLObjects
Posted by "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>.
Yes, It does sound of interest, I guess I need to clarify the goal I'm
reaching for and see if what your working on can meet that goal:
I have xml documents that I want to place into a Xindice Collection that
generally look like this:
<codeBook>
<stdyDscr>
<!-- these sections are resonable in size and can go directly
into Xindice-->
</stdyDscr>
<dataDscr>
<!- this section is not reasonable in size, variables can number
in the thousands and contain large amounts of information. I want these
sections to be in a different storage solution but be retrievable witht
he rest of the document through Xindice itself. -->
<var id="1">....</var>
<var id="2">....</var>
<var id="3">....</var>
<var id="4">....</var>
...
<var id="NNNN">....</var>
</dataDscr>
<codeBook>
When I do an xpath query in Xindice, I want to be able to search the var
section as well. But I wanted it to be through an XMLObject that was
working with an relational db to improve the performance of that subtree.
Would your solution be applicable in this case or is it an XML-RPC
solution that would fall outside of Xindice via a different XML-RPC
command/ interface?
thank you,
Mark
Kurt Ward wrote:
>Mark,
>
>You can write custom functions via the XML-RPC
>interface. You won't be able to call them from the
>XML:DB API, but you CAN call them directly via
>XML-RPC. The only downside is you would have to run
>the build process each time you added a new extension.
>I have been working on a system outside of the current
>CVS tree (mostly because it does not support Xindice
>in embedded mode) that is similar to the way
>XMLObjects worked in 1.0, but less complicated and
>does not require you to run the build. It also allows
>for restrictions such as 'run from localhost only' and
>'require SSL protocol' as execution options for
>example. Let me know if this sounds interesting to
>you...
>
>Kurt
>
>--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations?
>>
>>Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>I have a question concerning the removal of
>>>
>>>
>>XMLObject in 1.1.
>>
>>
>>>I was interested in possibly building an XMLObject
>>>
>>>
>>to store very large
>>
>>
>>>"table like" fragments of my XML documents in a
>>>
>>>
>>relation db that would
>>
>>
>>>be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice. But
>>>
>>>
>>now I here that
>>
>>
>>>XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is
>>>
>>>
>>there any alternative
>>
>>
>>>for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would
>>>
>>>
>>it be possible for me
>>
>>
>>>to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my needs?
>>>
>>>-Mark Diggory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: XMLObjects
Posted by Kurt Ward <ku...@yahoo.com>.
Mark,
You can write custom functions via the XML-RPC
interface. You won't be able to call them from the
XML:DB API, but you CAN call them directly via
XML-RPC. The only downside is you would have to run
the build process each time you added a new extension.
I have been working on a system outside of the current
CVS tree (mostly because it does not support Xindice
in embedded mode) that is similar to the way
XMLObjects worked in 1.0, but less complicated and
does not require you to run the build. It also allows
for restrictions such as 'run from localhost only' and
'require SSL protocol' as execution options for
example. Let me know if this sounds interesting to
you...
Kurt
--- "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>
wrote:
> Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations?
>
> Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I have a question concerning the removal of
> XMLObject in 1.1.
> >
> > I was interested in possibly building an XMLObject
> to store very large
> > "table like" fragments of my XML documents in a
> relation db that would
> > be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice. But
> now I here that
> > XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is
> there any alternative
> > for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would
> it be possible for me
> > to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my needs?
> >
> > -Mark Diggory
> >
>
Re: XMLObjects
Posted by "Mark R. Diggory" <md...@latte.harvard.edu>.
Is this a bad idea? Any other recommendations?
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a question concerning the removal of XMLObject in 1.1.
>
> I was interested in possibly building an XMLObject to store very large
> "table like" fragments of my XML documents in a relation db that would
> be XQuery/XUpdate/... accessable from Xindice. But now I here that
> XMLObject has been removed and I'm kind stuck. Is there any alternative
> for my usecase that Xindice is planning? Or would it be possible for me
> to "resurect" an XMLObject interface for my needs?
>
> -Mark Diggory
>